[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
<Price code G, AE407204 PR548501>
- AGLC
- RawPCB Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 1643
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 1643
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.