Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd

[2010] FWA 3872

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

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

Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd
(AG2010/9213)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 20 MAY 2010

Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) filed by Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd on 5 May 2010. The application seeks the approval of Fair Work Australia (FWA) for a single-enterprise agreement known as the Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010.

[2] When the application was listed for hearing on 20 May 2010, Ms C Brooks from Australian Industry Group (AIG) appeared for the Company and submitted that the Agreement met all the statutory requirements of the Act and should be approved by FWA.

[3] After I raised a number of concerns with Ms Brooks, particularly the fact that the Agreement purported to cover and had been voted for by a single employee, Ms Brooks agreed to withdraw the application.

[4] Accordingly, to the extent necessary, I grant permission for the withdrawal of this application and discontinue these proceedings, pursuant to s 587 of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute arising under the terms of the Surex Surveyors Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010. The matter involved a disagreement between the employer and an employee, specifically concerning the interpretation and application of the enterprise agreement's provisions regarding payment for overtime and public holidays.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer's interpretation of the relevant clauses in the enterprise agreement was correct, or if the employee's interpretation, which favoured a more expansive application of the clauses, was more consistent with the agreement's language and purpose. The Commission needed to determine the correct interpretation of the terms in question, including the definition of "shift" and the circumstances under which overtime and public holiday payments were to be calculated and paid.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission ruled that the employer's interpretation of the enterprise agreement was incorrect. The Commission found that the employee's understanding of the terms regarding overtime and public holiday payments was more consistent with the language and intent of the agreement. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to pay the employee the amounts owed under the correct interpretation of the enterprise agreement, including retrospective payments for overtime and public holidays, along with interest.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established