| [2016] FWCA 789 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Tripstar Investments Pty Ltd atf A & M Triplett Family Trust t/a Caltex Woolworths Clarkson / Caltex Star Shop North Wanneroo
(AG2015/6946)
TRIPSTAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT
Vehicle industry | |
COMMISSIONER ROE | MELBOURNE, 8 FEBRUARY 2016 |
Application for approval of the Tripstar Investments Pty Ltd Collective Enterprise Agreement.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Tripstar Investments Pty Ltd Collective Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tripstar Investments Pty Ltd atf A & M Triplett Family Trust t/a Caltex Woolworths Clarkson / Caltex Star Shop North Wanneroo. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The Agreement was approved on 8 February 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 February 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 February 2020.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE417718 PR576785>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Tripstar Investments Pty Ltd atf A & M Triplett Family Trust t/a Caltex Woolworths Clarkson / Caltex Star Shop North Wanneroo [2016] FWCA 789
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 789
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine if the proposed agreement included all mandatory terms, was free from prohibited content, and provided for appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Additionally, the court examined whether the agreement was made in good faith and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. It also considered whether the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of both the employer and the employees.
The Commission found that the agreement did not appropriately address the issue of penalty rates for shift loading, as it failed to provide for adequate protection for employees working on Sundays and public holidays. The court ruled that the proposed agreement did not meet the standards for a fair and reasonable enterprise agreement. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission did not make any specific orders but indicated that the agreement should be revised to address the identified issues before resubmission.
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.