Wattlaw Pty Ltd t/as Thomas Henry House

Case [2016] FWCA 7257


[2016] FWCA 7257
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Wattlaw Pty Ltd t/as Thomas Henry House
(AG2016/5941)

THOMAS HENRY HOUSE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Hospitality industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 10 OCTOBER 2016

Application for approval of the Thomas Henry House Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Wattlaw Pty Ltd t/as Thomas Henry House (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Thomas Henry House Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement is to cover all employees (currently 2) of the applicant’s residential care facility located at Clunies Ross Court, Eight Miles Plains, QLD.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 10 August 2016, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 7 September 2016. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a vote, both of the employees who are to be covered by the Agreement agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 23 September 2016. While I note that this falls outside the statutory time limit set out in s 185(3)(a) of the Act, I consider it fair in all the circumstances to extend the date for lodgement to 23 September 2016 (s 185(3)(b)).

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17), Ms G McIlroy, Senior Workplace Relations Consultant, identified the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 [MA000009] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). The terms and conditions under the Agreement largely replicate those set out in the Award. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 39 and 41 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 40 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 15 July 2016, Ms G McIlroy, appeared with Mr M Farnan of the applicant. Ms McIlroy outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. She explained that rates of pay are to be increased by 3% on the first, second and third anniversaries of the Agreement.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Thomas Henry House Enterprise Agreement 2016.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 12 October 2016 and have a nominal expiry date of 4 October 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE421569  PR586275>

Details
AGLC
Wattlaw Pty Ltd t/as Thomas Henry House [2016] FWCA 7257
Case
[2016] FWCA 7257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Wattlaw Pty Ltd t/as Thomas Henry House, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving an enterprise agreement. The dispute centred around the Thomas Henry House Enterprise Agreement 2016, with the application for its approval made by Wattlaw Pty Ltd, trading as Thomas Henry House. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it was a "certified agreement" and if it complied with the relevant sections of the Act. This included verifying whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and if it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions of employment. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was free from any illegality or unfairness.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Thomas Henry House Enterprise Agreement 2016 had been negotiated in good faith and contained all the required minimum terms and conditions. The Commission also determined that the agreement was not illegal or unfair, and thus met the statutory requirements for approval. Consequently, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was granted. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the negotiation process and the content of the agreement, ensuring compliance with the Fair Work Act.

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.