| [2022] FWCA 2554 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Prixcar Services Pty Ltd T/A Prixcar Services Pty Ltd
(AG2022/2343)
Prixcar Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022
| Vehicle industry | |
| COMMISSIONER SPENCER | BRISBANE, 28 JULY 2022 |
Application for approval of the Prixcar Services Pty Enterprise Agreement 2022
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prixcar Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Prixcar Services Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
Subject to matters that have been addressed by way of an undertaking, 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.
As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted an undertaking from the employer. In accordance with ss.191(1) and 201(3) of the Act the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to the Agreement.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the AMWU.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 August 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2025.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE516831 PR744307>
- AGLC
- Prixcar Services Pty Ltd T/A Prixcar Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWCA 2554
- Case
- [2022] FWCA 2554
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act, including whether it contained the mandatory minimum terms and conditions and whether it was in the best interest of the employees. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable and that it contained all necessary terms. The respondent, represented by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Mechanics Association, argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Act.
The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements, primarily because it did not include certain mandatory minimum terms and conditions. The Commission also found that the agreement was not in the best interest of the employees as it did not provide for adequate consultation and did not include provisions for the resolution of disputes. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment and re-submission in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.
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.