TRUSWELL and BONELLI Summary

[2018] FWCA 120

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

(AG2017/6441)

PLM Electrics Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021

Electrical contracting industry
Commissioner Wilson	MELBOURNE, 5 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the PLM Electrics Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the PLM Electrics Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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.

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.

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. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were TRUSWELL and BONELLI, who brought a matter before the court to determine whether they were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of a particular legal issue. The applicant, TRUSWELL, claimed that she had a de facto relationship with BONELLI, who owned two houses, one of which TRUSWELL occupied. BONELLI denied that a de facto relationship existed between them. The court was tasked with deciding whether the relationship of the parties was properly characterised as a de facto relationship.

The court considered the legal issues involved in determining whether a de facto relationship existed, focusing on the factors that indicated such a relationship. The applicant's inconsistent representations to government agencies were also evaluated as part of the court's assessment. The court was required to determine if the relationship between the parties met the criteria for a de facto relationship as defined by the relevant legislation.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the relationship did not meet the legal definition of a de facto relationship. The court found that the applicant had made inconsistent representations to government agencies, which undermined her credibility. The court also found that the factors indicating a de facto relationship were not present in this case. Consequently, the court dismissed the application.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal criteria for a de facto relationship. The court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that a de facto relationship existed between the parties. The court's reasoning and findings led to the dismissal of the application, with no further orders made by the court.

TRUSWELL and BONELLI

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established