Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FWCA 2544


[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>

Details
AGLC
Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 2544
Case
[2013] FWCA 2544
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd was the subject of an application for the approval of the Valspar Maintenance Support Focused Enterprise Agreement 2012. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission of Australia, which heard the matter in the context of an enterprise bargaining dispute. The applicant sought approval of the agreement, which had been negotiated with the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The respondent, the union, opposed the application, arguing that the agreement did not comply with certain statutory requirements.

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.