DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd
(AG2016/781)

QUICKCELL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Cement and concrete products
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 4 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd. 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 4 May 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 11 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 May 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd for the approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2016. The applicant sought to have the agreement certified as meeting the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically a panel consisting of a delegate of the President. The dispute centred around whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the coverage of employees and the terms of the agreement.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Enterprise Agreement 2016 met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act for certification. This included ensuring that the agreement was in writing, had been negotiated in good faith, and did not discriminate against employees on impermissible grounds. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the agreement appropriately covered the intended employees and if the bargaining representatives had the necessary authority to negotiate the agreement on behalf of the employees.

The court examined the evidence and submissions provided by both the applicant and the respondents. It found that the agreement was in writing and had been negotiated in good faith. The court also determined that the agreement did not discriminate against employees and that the bargaining representatives had the necessary authority to negotiate on behalf of the employees. The court further found that the agreement appropriately covered the intended employees and met all the statutory requirements for certification. Based on these findings, the court approved the Enterprise Agreement 2016.

Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established