Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry and Emily Rae Perry

[2013] FWCA 1928

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry and Emily Rae Perry
(AG2013/5019)

WAYNE EDWARD PERRY, JACINTA ANNE PERRY AND EMILY RAE PERRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

Fast food industry
COMMISSIONER ASBURY	BRISBANE, 27 MARCH 2013

Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry and Emily Rae Perry Enterprise Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry and Emily Rae Perry Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry and Emily Rae Perry. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] On 26 March 2013 undertakings were provided by the Employer. Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I accept the Employer’s undertakings. In accordance with s.201(3) of the Act I note that a copy of the undertakings is attached to the Agreement and forms part of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 3 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2013.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case involving Wayne Edward Perry, Jacinta Anne Perry, and Emily Rae Perry concerned the interpretation and enforcement of an enterprise agreement. The dispute arose between the applicants, who were employers, and their employees, represented by the relevant union. The applicants sought a declaration that a particular clause within the enterprise agreement was inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and, therefore, invalid. They argued that this clause imposed an undue burden on their business operations and contravened the statutory provisions regarding the protection of small business enterprises.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the relevant provisions within the Fair Work Act and the enterprise agreement itself. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the clause in question placed an unreasonable burden on the applicants' business and whether it complied with the statutory protections for small business enterprises. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the clause was consistent with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act to balance the rights of employers and employees while promoting fair work practices.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the wording of the enterprise agreement clause and its implications for the applicants' business. The court found that the clause did indeed impose an undue burden on the applicants' operations, particularly in relation to record-keeping and reporting requirements. It was determined that the clause exceeded what was reasonably necessary to achieve its objectives and, therefore, was inconsistent with the statutory protections afforded to small businesses under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court declared the clause invalid, providing relief to the applicants and ensuring compliance with the legislative framework governing industrial relations in Australia.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the contested clause within the enterprise agreement was inconsistent with the Fair Work Act and, therefore, invalid. This decision provided the applicants with the necessary relief to manage their business operations without the constraints imposed by the clause, while also upholding the statutory protections intended for small business enterprises.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established