| [2018] FWCA 652 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Premier Coal Limited
(AG2017/5498)
PREMIER COAL LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017
Coal industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON | MELBOURNE, 31 JANUARY 2018 |
Application for approval of the Premier Coal Limited Enterprise Agreement 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Premier Coal Limited Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Premier Coal Limited. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) being a bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 February 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 January 2022.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE427178 PR599976>
- AGLC
- Premier Coal Limited [2018] FWCA 652
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 652
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission undertook a detailed examination of the agreement, considering whether it complied with the mandatory requirements under section 234 of the Fair Work Act. These requirements include the specification of minimum rates of pay, classification of employees, provisions for allowances and other entitlements, as well as rules governing termination of employment and dispute resolution mechanisms. The applicant argued that the agreement comprehensively covered all these aspects. However, the Commission found several deficiencies, including the absence of specific details regarding shift differentials and the omission of provisions for annual leave loading. These omissions led the Commission to conclude that the agreement did not fully meet the mandatory terms prescribed by the Act.
Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval, emphasising the necessity for the agreement to contain all mandatory terms as per the statutory requirements. The Commission held that without these details, the agreement could not be considered compliant and lawful. The applicant was directed to amend the agreement to address the identified deficiencies before it could be reconsidered for approval. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative framework governing enterprise agreements to ensure they provide fair and lawful terms for employees.
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.