Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

[2013] FWCA 1976

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
(AG2013/5759)

MIDLAND SUPA IGA AND SDA AGREEMENT 2012

Retail industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 3 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the Midland Supa IGA and SDA Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Midland Supa IGA and SDA Agreement 2012 (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] Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, the Fair Work Commission extends the period for filing the application in this matter to the date on which the application was filed.

[3] 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] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 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 parties in this case were the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and Midland Supa IGA. The dispute was about the approval of a new agreement between the two parties, known as the Midland Supa IGA and SDA Agreement 2012. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue the court had to decide was whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the agreement provided for minimum terms and conditions of employment, and whether it was in the public interest.

The court examined the terms of the agreement and found that it contained provisions for minimum wages, penalties, leave entitlements, and other conditions of employment. The court also considered whether the agreement was likely to achieve better outcomes for employees, employers, and the community, and whether it was consistent with the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that the agreement met all the necessary criteria and was in the public interest.

Consequently, the court approved the Midland Supa IGA and SDA Agreement 2012. This decision was made in light of the evidence presented by both parties, as well as the court's interpretation of the relevant legislation. The court found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and that it would benefit both employees and employers in the long term. The final orders of the court were that the agreement be approved and registered under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established