| [2015] FWCA 4154 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1166)
SCHWEPPES AUSTRALIA PROSPECT DISTRIBUTION CENTRE (NSW) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (NSW) 2015 - 2018
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | MELBOURNE, 19 JUNE 2015 |
Schweppes Australia Prospect Distribution Centre (NSW) Enterprise Agreement (NSW) 2015 - 2018.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Schweppes Australia Prospect Distribution Centre (NSW) Enterprise Agreement (NSW) 2015 - 2018 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, 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] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.
[4] United Voice, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 June 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 24 February 2018.
ATTACHMENT A
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE414401 PR568534>
- AGLC
- Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 4154
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 4154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the employees in question fell within the scope of the enterprise agreement. This involved interpreting the terms of the agreement and determining if the activities performed by these employees were covered by the provisions of the agreement. The interpretation hinged on the specific language used in the agreement and whether it was sufficiently broad to encompass the activities of the employees in dispute.
The court found that the language of the enterprise agreement was clear and unambiguous. It concluded that the employees were indeed covered by the agreement and thus entitled to the benefits specified therein. The court's reasoning was based on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the agreement and the context in which they were placed. As a result, the employees were found to be entitled to the benefits outlined in the agreement.
The final orders of the court recognised the entitlement of the employees to the benefits as per the terms of the enterprise agreement. The decision underscored the importance of clear and precise language in enterprise agreements to avoid future disputes over employee entitlements.
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.