| [2015] FWCA 7285 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Staples Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/5881)
STAPLES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD CAMPBELL STREET AND SUNDERLAND ST DISTRIBUTION CENTRES, HOBART ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT: 2015
Storage services | |
COMMISSIONER ROE | MELBOURNE, 22 OCTOBER 2015 |
Application for approval of the Staples Australia Pty Ltd Campbell Street and Sunderland St Distribution Centres, Hobart Enterprise Partnership Agreement: 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Staples Australia Pty Ltd Campbell Street and Sunderland St Distribution Centres, Hobart Enterprise Partnership Agreement: 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Staples Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.
[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 22 October 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 29 October 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE416298 PR573193>
- AGLC
- Staples Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 7285
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 7285
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court held that the Planning Commission had exercised its powers in accordance with the statutory scheme. The Commission's assessment of the application was comprehensive, and the evidence demonstrated that the development would be in the public interest. The Court found that the Planning Commission had not erred in law in approving the application. The Court also held that the conditions imposed were appropriate and did not render the approval legally flawed. The appeal was dismissed.
The Court made no orders as to costs.
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.