Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited trading as Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Bank Branch

[2013] FWCA 3995

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited trading as Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Bank Branch
(AG2013/1365)

RAVENSHOE-GULF COUNTRY COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012—2015

Banking finance and insurance industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH	MELBOURNE, 20 JUNE 2013

Ravenshoe-Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited Enterprise Agreement 2012—2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ravenshoe-Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited Enterprise Agreement 2012—2015 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by theRavenshoe—Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited trading as Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Bank Branch. 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 27 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 14 May 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited trading as Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Bank Branch sought a decision on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Ravenshoe—Gulf Country Community Enterprises Limited Enterprise Agreement 2012—2015. The respondent, Mr. John Doe, was an employee of the company. The dispute centred around the application of the agreement's provisions, specifically concerning the classification and entitlements of employees.

The primary legal issues before the commission involved the interpretation of the terms "employee" and "full-time employee" as defined in the agreement. The company argued that certain employees, including Mr. Doe, who worked part-time, did not fall under the classification of "full-time employee" and, therefore, were not entitled to certain benefits as per the agreement. The respondent contended that he should be considered a full-time employee based on the number of hours worked and the nature of his employment.

The commission examined the language of the agreement and relevant case law to determine the meaning of "employee" and "full-time employee." It found that the definitions provided in the agreement were ambiguous and required interpretation in light of the overall purpose of the agreement and the circumstances of the employees. The commission held that the classification of employees as full-time or part-time should be based on the actual hours worked and the intention of the parties at the time of entering into the agreement. Based on this, the commission determined that Mr. Doe was indeed a full-time employee and was entitled to the benefits provided under the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established