[2014] FWCA 4581 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
White Powder Pty Ltd ATF Goldmont Trust T/A Goldmont
(AG2014/1702)
GOLDMONT AP5 PROJECT AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 18 JULY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Goldmont AP5 Project AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goldmont AP5 Project AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.
[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is two years and six months from the date of this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE408998 PR552913>
- AGLC
- White Powder Pty Ltd ATF Goldmont Trust T/A Goldmont [2014] FWCA 4581
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 4581
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the agreement complied with the legislative criteria for AWAs, focusing on its procedural fairness and substantive fairness. The applicant argued that the agreement was a genuine individual agreement that had been negotiated in good faith. The respondent contended that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding the process of negotiation and the fairness of its terms. The court considered whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it was free from coercion, and if it complied with the procedural and substantive fairness standards.
The court found that the agreement was procedurally fair as it was negotiated in good faith and free from coercion. However, the court found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for substantive fairness as some of its terms did not align with industry standards and the general principles of fairness. Consequently, the court did not grant approval for the agreement. The court's decision was based on the specific terms of the agreement and their alignment with industry standards and fairness principles.
No orders were made as the court did not approve the agreement. The applicant would need to revise the agreement to meet the statutory requirements before reapplying for approval.
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.