Score Brisbane Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 1850

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Score Brisbane Pty Ltd
(AG2014/536)

SCORE GROUP ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 3 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Score Group Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 11 March 2014 by Score Brisbane Pty Ltd for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Score Group Enterprise Agreement 2013(“the Agreement”).

[2] On 2 April 2014, the Employer provided an undertaking to the Fair Work Commission. This undertaking is attached to and taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] In light of the Employer’s undertaking, 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 consultation clause in the Agreement does not conform with s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached to the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Score Brisbane Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Score Group Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was opposed by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union. The matter was heard by Deputy President J T C O’Connell who held that the application should be approved. The union appealed to the Federal Circuit Court and the court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The union appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Circuit Court.

The legal issue for the Full Court was whether the Deputy President erred in law in his assessment of the enterprise agreement. The union argued that the Deputy President was wrong to find that the agreement provided for a casual loading for casual employees. The union submitted that the agreement was intended to provide for a penalty rate for casual employees, not a casual loading. The Full Court held that the Deputy President's interpretation was correct. The Full Court found that the agreement provided for a casual loading of 25 per cent of an employee's ordinary rate of pay, not a penalty rate. The Full Court found that the Deputy President's reasons were logical, coherent, and supported by the evidence.

The Full Court found that the Deputy President correctly interpreted the agreement. The Full Court held that the Deputy President's reasons were logical and coherent and supported by the evidence. The Full Court found that the Deputy President was correct to interpret the agreement as providing for a casual loading of 25 per cent of an employee's ordinary rate of pay, not a penalty rate. The Full Court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The Full Court held that the application for approval of the enterprise agreement should be approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established