Stegbar Pty. Limited

[2013] FWCA 2551

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Stegbar Pty. Limited
(AG2013/938)

STEGBAR SHOWERSCREENS AND WARDROBES (GAVEN) FACTORY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 29 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the Stegbar Showerscreens and Wardrobes (Gaven) Factory Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 18 April 2013 by Stegbar Pty. Limited for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Stegbar Showerscreens and Wardrobes (Gaven) Factory Enterprise Agreement 2013 (“the 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] The flexibility clause in the Agreement does not conform with s.203(4) of the Act. Pursuant 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. Similarly, the consultation clause does not conform with s.205(1)(b) of the Act. 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] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stegbar Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Stegbar Showerscreens and Wardrobes (Gaven) Factory Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was made under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondents to the application were the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Building, Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The applicants argued that the agreement should be approved as it was in the best interests of the employees, as it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The respondents argued that the agreement did not provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and that it should not be approved.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission considered the evidence presented by the parties and the relevant law and found that the agreement did provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission took into account the fact that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that it provided for a number of benefits for the employees, including increased wages and improved working conditions. The Commission also noted that the agreement had been supported by the majority of the employees.

The Commission approved the agreement, finding that it met the requirements of section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission ordered that the agreement be registered and that it would have effect from the date of the registration. The respondents were given the right to apply for a review of the decision within 21 days of the registration of the agreement. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established