| [2016] FWCA 3928 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1107)
VALSPAR PAINT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD NEW SOUTH WALES PAINT CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016
Retail industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL | SYDNEY, 30 JUNE 2016 |
Application for approval of the Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd NEW SOUTH WALES PAINT CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016
[1] An application has been made by Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd (the applicant/Valspar) for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd NEW SOUTH WALES PAINT CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Agreement covers New South Wales paint centre employees who are engaged in the applicant’s retail and stores network. As per s.186(3A) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen based on the operational and geographical distinctiveness of the proposed coverage.
[3] United Voice (NSW Branch) (United Voice) being a bargaining representative has filed a statutory declaration (F18) in support of the approval of the Agreement.
Complying superannuation fund
[4] The Commission wrote to the applicant expressing concern that the super fund outlined in clause 37 of the Agreement- Superannuation, does not outline whether the fund offers a MySuper product as required under s.194(h)(i) of the Act.
[5] In response to the Commission’s concerns, the applicant provided evidence that Valspar's default fund ‘Plum Superannuation Fund’ provides a MySuper product. I am satisfied that the Agreement complies with s.194(h)(i) of the Act.
Signed copy of the Agreement - Regulation 2.06A of the Fair Work Regulations 2009
[6] The signatures page of the submitted Agreement did not contain an explanation of the applicant’s representative’s authority to sign the Agreement as per Regulation 2.06A(2)(b)(ii) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (the Regulations). At the request of the Commission, the applicant has provided a signed copy of the Agreement in compliance with the Regulations.
Better off overall test (BOOT)
[7] The General Retail Industry Award 2010 (Award) is the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the better off over all test (BOOT) as required under s.186 of the Act.
[8] The Agreement provides base rates of pay which are higher than the corresponding minimum rates of pay under the Award, being 23.04% to 42.18% higher for all employees.
[9] Employees are entitled to payment of annual leave loading, weekend penalty rates, and overtime payments for all work outside to their ordinary hours and public holiday penalties as per the Award.
Conclusion
[10] Taking into account the higher rates of pay under the Agreement, I am satisfied that employees will be better off overall under the Agreement.
[11] 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.
[12] United Voice has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this employee organisation.
[13] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1), the Agreement will operate from 7 July 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 February 2019.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE419415 PR581732>
- AGLC
- Valspar Paint (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 3928
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 3928
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine if the agreement was a "single interest" enterprise agreement as defined under the Act and whether it had been negotiated in good faith. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the agreement contained all the mandated terms and conditions and if it was consistent with the overarching national employment standards and safety provisions. The court also examined if the agreement had been appropriately presented and if it adhered to procedural fairness requirements.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was indeed a single interest enterprise agreement and had been negotiated in good faith. The agreement was deemed to include all the necessary terms and conditions and was compliant with the national employment standards. The Commission also determined that the procedural fairness had been upheld. Consequently, the application for approval was granted, and the New South Wales Paint Centre Enterprise Agreement 2016 was approved.
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.