Stramit Building Products

[2013] FWCA 771

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Stramit Building Products
(AG2013/15)

STRAMIT BUILDING PRODUCTS - ROCKHAMPTON (QUEENSLAND) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 5 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Stramit Building Products - Rockhampton (Queensland) Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Stramit Building Products - Rockhampton (Queensland) Enterprise Agreement 2013. (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Stramit Building Products. The agreement is a single-enterprise 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 Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 January 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Stramit Building Products, sought approval of the Stramit Building Products - Rockhampton (Queensland) Enterprise Agreement 2013, from the Fair Work Commission. The application was brought by the applicant, an employer, under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement, which the applicant sought to have certified as applicable to its employees. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with the Commission comprising of Deputy President C. F. Heydon, S. J. Katzmann, and J. E. Mortimer.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the enterprise agreement met the criteria for approval under section 230 of the Fair Work Act, including whether the agreement had been made in good faith and whether it provided for terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable. The Court also considered whether the agreement complied with the requirements for coverage and whether it had been properly negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

The Court found that the enterprise agreement met the criteria for approval. It held that the agreement had been made in good faith and provided for terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable. The Court also found that the agreement complied with the requirements for coverage and that it had been properly negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. The Court approved the agreement, and it became binding on the parties from the date of the Commission's decision.

The Court did not make any further orders in relation to the application. The parties were left to implement the terms of the approved enterprise agreement in accordance with its provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established