[2013] FWCA 2544 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2013/952)
VALSPAR MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FOCUSED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER MACDONALD | SYDNEY, 29 APRIL 2013 |
Application for approval of the Valspar Maintenance Support Focused Enterprise Agreement 2012 .
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Valspar Maintenance Support Focused Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made by Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Limited 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 Australian Workers’ Union, 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[4] The Agreement is approved in accordance with s.54 of the Act and will operate from 6 May 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 August 2014.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code {C}, AE400954 PR536014>
- AGLC
- Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 2544
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 2544
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the standards for approval as set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was a "single flexible enterprise agreement," whether it contained the required minimum terms and conditions, and if it had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. The Commission also needed to consider the effect of the agreement on the employees' rights and protections.
In delivering the decision, the Commission held that the agreement was a single flexible enterprise agreement and contained the required minimum terms and conditions. The Commission found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and did not undermine the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised the importance of the agreement's provisions regarding flexibility and the parties' commitment to good faith bargaining. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, noting that it struck an appropriate balance between the needs of the employer and the rights of the employees. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions and the submissions made by both parties.
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.