| [2015] FWCA 871 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
The Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Plumbing Division - Queensland Branch
(AG2015/1687)
TRIPLE M FIRE PTY LTD AND CEPU PLUMBING DIVISION UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011 - 2015
Plumbing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE | SYDNEY, 5 FEBRUARY 2015 |
Application for approval of the Triple M Fire Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Union Collective Agreement 2011 - 2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Triple M Fire Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Union Collective Agreement 2011 - 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 12 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2015.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE412513 PR560763>
- AGLC
- The Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Plumbing Division - Queensland Branch [2015] FWCA 871
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 871
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Union argued that the agreement was fair and should be approved. The Employer, however, contended that the classification of employees under the agreement was incorrect and that the overtime provisions were unfair. The Commission considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence provided. It found that the classification of employees was not accurate and that the overtime provisions were not equitable. However, the Commission also noted that the parties had reached the agreement through good faith bargaining and that the agreement contained provisions that were in the best interests of the employees.
In light of these findings, the Commission decided that the agreement should be approved, subject to certain modifications to the classification of employees and the overtime provisions. The modifications were designed to ensure that the agreement was fair and equitable, while still reflecting the intentions of the parties. The Union and the Employer were given the opportunity to comment on the modifications before the Commission made its final decision. The final orders of the Commission were that the collective agreement be approved, subject to the modifications made to the classification of employees and the overtime provisions.
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.