Vincent James Irwin Summary

[2013] FWCA 8314

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Vincent James Irwin
(AG2013/9622)

ROCKHAMPTON POLES ROCLA COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 23 OCTOBER 2013

Application for approval of the Rockhampton Poles Rocla Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rockhampton Poles Rocla Collective Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] 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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 30 October 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 29 July 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent James Irwin was the applicant, seeking approval of the Rockhampton Poles Rocla Collective Agreement 2013. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issue for the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the requirements for proper negotiation and the avoidance of coercion and undue influence, which are necessary for an agreement to be considered genuinely negotiated and thus eligible for approval.

The Commission considered the evidence presented regarding the negotiation process, including the conduct of the parties and the terms of the agreement. It examined whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, free from coercion and undue influence, and whether it provided for the proper protection of employees' rights and interests. The Commission also evaluated whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for the protection of employees and the avoidance of adverse economic consequences. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and did not involve any undue influence or coercion. The terms of the agreement were deemed to be fair and reasonable, providing adequate protection for the employees involved.

As a result, the Commission approved the Rockhampton Poles Rocla Collective Agreement 2013, finding it to be compliant with the statutory requirements for genuine negotiation and the avoidance of undue influence. The Commission determined that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and did not lead to adverse economic consequences. The applicant's application for approval was therefore successful.

Vincent James Irwin

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established