Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 9285

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd
(AG2013/10184)

PRESTIGE PUMP RENTALS PTY LTD WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 6 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a greenfields 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 does not contain a flexibility term. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 1 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

1 Section 2.08 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd applied for approval of the Prestige Pump Rentals Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, opposed the application on the basis that the proposed agreement did not comply with the Australian Building and Construction Commission’s minimum standards. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed agreement complied with the Fair Work Act and the relevant minimum standards set out in the Australian Building and Construction Commission’s code. The key issue was whether the proposed agreement provided for a 40-hour work week, as required by the minimum standards.

The court found that the proposed agreement did not provide for a 40-hour work week, as it allowed for variations to the standard hours of work. However, the court also found that the parties had negotiated in good faith and had reached an agreement that was fair and reasonable. The court approved the proposed agreement, noting that it provided for a number of protections for employees, including provisions for penalty rates, leave entitlements, and dispute resolution.

The court’s decision was based on a balancing of the competing interests of the parties and the need to promote good faith bargaining. The court held that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, and approved it subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the requirement that the parties provide a copy of the approved agreement to the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and that any variations to the agreement be approved by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established