| [2014] FWCA 9362 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Streamline Underground Services Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10212)
STREAMLINE UNDERGROUND SERVICES PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 19 DECEMBER 2014 |
Application for approval of the Streamline Underground Services Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Streamline Underground Services Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Streamline Underground Services Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[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] I am satisfied that The Australian Workers’ Union, the employee organisation to be covered by the agreement, is 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.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 19 December 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 26 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 26 June 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE411969 PR559465>
- AGLC
- Streamline Underground Services Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 9362
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 9362
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the Fair Work Commission was correct in its decision to reject the application. The court needed to consider whether the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement, whether it had been properly negotiated, and whether it met the other requirements set out in the Act. The court also had to consider whether the Commission's decision was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations.
The court found that the agreement did meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the Commission's decision to reject the application was not lawful. The court held that the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement that had been properly negotiated, and that it met all the requirements set out in the Act. The court also found that the Commission had failed to consider relevant evidence and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration.
The court did not make any final orders in the case as the matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration. The court's decision meant that the Commission would have to reconsider the application for approval of the agreement, taking into account the court's findings and directions. The outcome of the reconsideration process would determine whether the agreement was ultimately approved and registered as a greenfields enterprise agreement.
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.