Shop, Distribute and Allied Employees’ Association

[2013] FWCA 2276

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Shop, Distribute and Allied Employees’ Association
(AG2013/5848)

QUEENS SUPERMARKET (WA) AND SDA AGREEMENT 2013

Retail industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 15 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the Queens Supermarket (WA) and SDA Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Queens Supermarket (WA) and SDA Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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] Clause 36−Introduction of Change of the Agreement does not provide for employee representatives other than the “Union” and so does not meet the requirements of s.205(1)(b) of the Act. As a consequence, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 1 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, 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 the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 April 2017.

COMMISSIONER

1 Section 2.09 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission concerned an application for approval of an agreement between Queens Supermarket (WA) and the Shop, Distribute and Allied Employees’ Association. The agreement in question was the Queens Supermarket (WA) and SDA Agreement 2013. The dispute centred on the approval of the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically examining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for registration with the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the agreement complied with the relevant legislative provisions, particularly sections 233 and 234 of the Fair Work Act. The court needed to determine if the agreement had been made in good faith and whether it provided for the fair and efficient determination of terms and conditions of employment. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the agreement was consistent with the objects of the Act, including ensuring fairness and promoting cooperative relationships between employers and employees.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law. The Commission examined the negotiation process of the agreement, the content of the agreement itself, and its alignment with the legislative objectives. The court found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, contained provisions that facilitated the fair and efficient determination of employment terms, and was consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission approved the Queens Supermarket (WA) and SDA Agreement 2013, allowing it to be registered and enforceable under the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established