Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1405

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd
(AG2013/422)

ROSE VALLEY BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER MACDONALD	SYDNEY, 7 MARCH 2013

Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2017 .

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The application has been made by Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd (“the applicant”). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 relevant to this application for approval has been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date is 14 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd, the appellant, was involved in a dispute with its employees, the respondents, concerning the interpretation and application of the Rose Valley Building Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The dispute ultimately reached the Fair Work Commission (FWC), where the appellant contested the respondents' claim for backpay and penalty rates. The primary issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of certain clauses within the enterprise agreement, particularly those concerning penalty rates and the calculation of entitlements for overtime and public holidays worked.

The Commission had to determine whether the respondents were entitled to penalty rates for hours worked on public holidays and whether the appellant had correctly calculated the overtime and penalty rates for the respondents' work. The Commission also considered whether the enterprise agreement had been properly registered and if there were any procedural issues affecting the validity of the agreement. The appellant argued that the agreement did not entitle the respondents to penalty rates for public holidays and that the respondents' claims for backpay were not substantiated.

After examining the enterprise agreement and the submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did entitle the respondents to penalty rates for public holidays worked and that the appellant had underpaid the respondents. The Commission held that the enterprise agreement was properly registered and that there were no procedural issues affecting its validity. Consequently, the Commission ordered the appellant to pay the respondents the outstanding amounts, including penalty rates for public holidays and additional overtime payments. The Commission also clarified certain provisions of the agreement to ensure proper application in future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established