RawPCB Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 1643

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 7 April 2014.

Paragraphs (3) and (4) have been consolidated into one paragraph.

Heather Russell

Associate to Deputy President McCarthy

Dated 7 April 2014

[2014] FWCA 1643

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

RawPCB Pty Ltd
(AG2014/3446)

RAWPCB PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 7 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the RawPCB Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the RawPCB Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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] I had some concerns regarding the superannuation clause in the Agreement. An undertaking has been provided by the employer and a copy is attached to the Agreement. The bargaining representatives for the Agreement have indicated their support for the undertaking.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RawPCB Pty Ltd, an employer, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of an enterprise agreement. The application was contested by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, which represents some of the employees. The Fair Work Commission, led by Commissioner McCabe, was tasked with deciding whether the proposed agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the mandatory bargaining provisions and whether it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions as required by the Act.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the procedural requirements of the Act, as it had not been made through the process of mandatory bargaining. The Commission also noted that the agreement did not contain all of the required minimum terms and conditions, specifically those relating to pay rates and conditions. As a result, the Commission determined that the proposed agreement could not be approved and dismissed the application.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application was dismissed. The employer was required to either renegotiate the agreement with the union or seek to have it made through a different process, such as a registered bargaining agreement or an individual flexibility arrangement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established