RFK Pty Limited Summary

[2013] FWCA 5516

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

RFK Pty Limited
(AG2013/7906)

RFK MEAL PRODUCTION AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the RFK Meal Production Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the RFK Meal Production Agreement 2013-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by RFK Pty Limited.

[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 Australian Services Union, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 15 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RFK Pty Limited applied to the Federal Circuit Court for the approval of the RFK Meal Production Agreement 2013-2016. The applicant, RFK, is a company that produces meals for the Royal Australian Air Force. The respondent to the application, the Commonwealth, argued that the agreement should not be approved because it was not consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The court had to determine whether the agreement complied with the Rules.

The key issue was whether the agreement met the requirements for a sole source agreement, as set out in the Rules. RFK argued that the agreement was a valid sole source agreement, as it was necessary to ensure the continuity of service, and there was no other supplier capable of providing the meals. The Commonwealth argued that the agreement was not a valid sole source agreement because it did not meet the requirements for a sole source agreement, and there were other suppliers that could provide the meals.

The court found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for a sole source agreement, as it did not include a clause that allowed for the termination of the agreement if another supplier became available. The court also found that there were other suppliers that could provide the meals, and therefore the agreement was not necessary to ensure the continuity of service. The court rejected the application for approval of the agreement.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and that the agreement be not approved. The court also ordered that RFK pay the Commonwealth's costs of the application.

RFK Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established