Rosetone Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 8415

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Rosetone Pty Ltd
(AG2013/2888)

ROSEBERRY HOUSE EBA2013

Children’s services
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 25 OCTOBER 2013

Application for approval of the Roseberry House EBA2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Roseberry House EBA2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Rosetone Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I have accepted an undertaking from the employer pursuant to s.190 of the Act which corrects a cross-referencing error in clause 12.1 of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision at Annexure A.

[3] Subject to the undertaking, which is taken to be a term of the Agreement under s.201(3) of the Act, 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 November 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 October 2017.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Rosetone Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought approval for the Roseberry House Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) 2013. This application arose from a need to formalise the terms of employment for employees under the EBA, including issues of pay, conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The legal issues before the court centred around the validity and fairness of the proposed EBA, specifically whether it met the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009. The court was required to determine whether the agreement was genuinely a bargain, fairly negotiated, and whether it complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for an EBA.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the negotiation process and the contents of the EBA. It assessed whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated between the parties, and whether it included all mandatory terms and conditions. The court also considered whether the EBA was procedurally sound, including the timing and manner of its submission to the Fair Work Commission. Furthermore, the court scrutinised the fairness of the terms, ensuring they did not contravene any statutory minimum standards or protections. Ultimately, the court found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, complied with the necessary procedural requirements, and did not contain any terms that were contrary to the Act or the Regulations.

Having found that the EBA was valid and compliant, the court granted approval for the Roseberry House EBA 2013. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that all employees' rights and conditions were adequately protected under the agreement. The court highlighted that the EBA must reflect a true bargain and provide fair and equitable terms for both the employer and employees. The approval of the EBA was thus a recognition of its compliance with the legislative framework and its potential to facilitate harmonious industrial relations.

Rosetone Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established