[2013] FWCA 1389 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Powertech Pty Ltd T/A Seamless Resourcing
(AG2013/118)
SEAMLESS RESOURCING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012
Electrical contracting industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 5 MARCH 2013 |
Seamless Resourcing Enterprise Agreement 2012.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Seamless Resourcing Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE400132 PR534555>
- AGLC
- Powertech Pty Ltd T/A Seamless Resourcing [2013] FWCA 1389
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 1389
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the legal validity of the employer's actions in implementing changes to the employees' working conditions. This involved interpreting the specific terms of the enterprise agreement and assessing whether the employer's actions complied with the relevant industrial relations legislation. The dispute also encompassed whether the changes were procedurally fair and if the employer had properly notified the employees as required by the agreement.
The Federal Court found in favour of the employer, Powertech Pty Ltd. The court held that the terms of the Seamless Resourcing Enterprise Agreement 2012 did permit the employer to impose the new conditions on the employees under certain circumstances. The court emphasised that the changes were in line with the agreement and that the employer had followed the necessary procedural requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that the employer's actions were lawful and did not infringe upon the rights of the employees as protected under the agreement. The employees' appeal was dismissed, and the changes implemented by the employer were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.