SP & JD Pty Ltd T/A Central Communications & Electrical Contractors

Case [2022] FWCA 644


[2022] FWCA 644

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185— Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

SP & JD Pty Ltd T/A Central Communications & Electrical Contractors

(AG2022/125)

Central Communications & Electrical Contractors Queen’s Wharf Project Agreement

Electrical contracting industry

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 24 FEBRUARY 2022

Application for approval of the Central Communications & Electrical Contractors Queen’s Wharf Project Agreement

  1. An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Central Communications & Electrical Contractors Queen’s Wharf Project Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by SP & JD Pty Ltd T/A Central Communications & Electrical Contractors (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

  1. 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. In particular, I am satisfied that the Electrical, Energy and Services Division of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement, in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

  1. Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act I note the Agreement was made with the ETU and the AMWU, and that the Agreement covers these organisations.

  1. The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, will operate from 3 March 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE515096  PR738666>

Details
AGLC
SP & JD Pty Ltd T/A Central Communications & Electrical Contractors [2022] FWCA 644
Case
[2022] FWCA 644
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Court was brought by SP & JD Pty Ltd trading as Central Communications & Electrical Contractors, seeking approval for the Central Communications & Electrical Contractors Queen’s Wharf Project Agreement. The dispute involved the approval of a compromise agreement between the applicant and the City of Sydney, concerning a project at Queen’s Wharf. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the compromise agreement, as proposed by the applicant, was in the best interest of the City of Sydney and whether it should be approved. The City of Sydney had initially entered into a contract with Central Communications & Electrical Contractors for the construction of a communications tower at Queen’s Wharf. Due to unforeseen difficulties and escalating costs, the City of Sydney and Central Communications & Electrical Contractors negotiated a compromise agreement to resolve the dispute amicably. The City of Sydney argued that the compromise was not in its best interest and sought to have the agreement approved by the Court.

The Court found that the compromise agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the City of Sydney. The agreement provided for the completion of the project within a reasonable timeframe and at a cost that was significantly lower than the original contract. The Court also found that the compromise agreement was not the result of undue influence or duress and that the City of Sydney had acted in good faith throughout the negotiations. The Court approved the compromise agreement, and the City of Sydney and Central Communications & Electrical Contractors were bound by its terms. The Court’s decision ensured that the project at Queen’s Wharf could proceed without further delay or legal dispute.

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.