Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 1524

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd
(AG2013/4903)

SIGMA SERVICES GROUP PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Security services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 11 MARCH 2013

Approval of single enterprise agreement Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 .

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The applicant has given undertakings in relation to the agreement which are attached to this decision and the back of the agreement.

[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] The Agreement is approved and will operate from 18 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 17 March 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Price code G, AE400238 PR534718>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd recently appeared before the Fair Work Commission in an appeal by the employer regarding the approval of an enterprise agreement. The dispute centred on the provisions of the Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017, which had been lodged for approval. The employer, Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd, challenged the fairness and validity of certain terms within the agreement, asserting that they were not genuinely bargained and did not meet the requirements for an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to resolve involved the genuineness of the bargaining process and the overall fairness of the agreement. Specifically, the employer questioned whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated, whether it contained terms that were reasonably necessary for the protection of the parties' interests, and whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 231 of the Act. Additionally, the employer contested the fairness of specific provisions related to shift allowances and penalty rates.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and if it contained terms that were reasonably necessary for the protection of the parties' interests. After careful consideration, the Commission concluded that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and contained terms that were reasonably necessary for the protection of the parties' interests. The Commission found that the employer had failed to demonstrate that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval under section 231 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 was approved in its entirety.

Sigma Services Group Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established