Ribshire Pty Ltd T/A Goodline

[2014] FWCA 2016

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ribshire Pty Ltd T/A Goodline
(AG2014/632)

GOODLINE NORTHSTAR STAGE 1 AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 4 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Goodline Northstar Stage 1 AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goodline Northstar Stage 1 AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[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 two years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ribshire Pty Ltd, trading as Goodline, applied for the approval of the Goodline Northstar Stage 1 AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014. The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) opposed the application, contending that the agreement failed to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue was whether the agreement complied with the statutory prerequisites set out in the Fair Work Act, particularly sections 232 and 233. The Commission examined the agreement's adherence to the mandated procedures, including the appropriate bargaining, the representation of the parties, and the content of the agreement itself. The Full Bench found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for several reasons. Firstly, it was determined that the agreement was not the product of genuine bargaining as required by section 232 of the Act. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the parties had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement through negotiation. Secondly, the Commission held that the agreement did not meet the prescribed minimum standards outlined in section 233 of the Act, as it did not include certain mandated terms and conditions. Given these findings, the Full Bench rejected the application for approval of the agreement. The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, and the agreement remain unapproved. This decision underscored the importance of genuine bargaining and adherence to statutory minimum standards in the approval of enterprise agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established