Tiad Enterprises Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 3234

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Tiad Enterprises Pty Ltd
(AG2013/6047)

TIAD ENTERPRISES EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 22 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Tiad Enterprises Employee Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Tiad Enterprises Employee Agreement 2013-2017 (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 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 seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The parties in the case were Tiad Enterprises Pty Ltd, represented by its director, and the Fair Work Commission, represented by the Acting President of the Commission. The dispute centered around the application for the approval of the Tiad Enterprises Employee Agreement 2013-2017. This case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an independent statutory tribunal in Australia responsible for resolving workplace disputes. The central legal issue that the Commission had to decide was whether the proposed employee agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement was an "individual agreement" as defined by the Act and whether it was in the best interest of the employees to approve the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the contents of the employee agreement to determine if it met the criteria for an individual agreement under the Act. The Commission noted that an individual agreement must cover only one employee and must not be a "small business agreement" or "enterprise agreement." After reviewing the agreement, the Commission concluded that it was an individual agreement and was not a small business agreement or an enterprise agreement. The Commission also considered whether the agreement was in the best interest of the employee. It was determined that the agreement was fair and balanced and was in the best interest of the employee, as it provided the employee with protections and benefits consistent with the National Employment Standards and the relevant awards.

Based on its findings, the Commission approved the Tiad Enterprises Employee Agreement 2013-2017. The Commission found that the agreement was in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and was in the best interest of the employee. As a result, the Commission granted the application for approval of the employee agreement. The approval of the agreement ensures that the employee is provided with the protections and benefits outlined in the agreement, as well as the protections provided by the National Employment Standards and relevant awards. This decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving the approval of individual employee agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established