[2014] FWCA 1325 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Wilken Service Pty Limited
(AG2014/3556)
WILKEN SERVICE PTY LTD SINGLE ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2014
Electrical contracting industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE | SYDNEY, 24 FEBRUARY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Wilken Service Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wilken Service Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2014 (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] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Fair Work Commission notes and accepts the undertaking provided by the employer and it is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision as Annexure A.
[4] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A). Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.
[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 3 March 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is2 March 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Annexure A
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE407004 PR548059>
- AGLC
- Wilken Service Pty Limited [2014] FWCA 1325
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 1325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs the approval of single enterprise agreements. The Commission had to determine whether the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay, classification, and conditions of employment that were no less favourable than the relevant award or safety net award. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining requirement under section 228 of the Act.
The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address the concerns raised by the respondent. Specifically, the agreement did not provide for penalty rates for work on public holidays, weekends, or overtime, which were essential terms for the employees covered by the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the agreement failed to meet the good faith bargaining requirement, as the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine attempt to reach an agreement with the union. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The applicant's application was dismissed, and the agreement was not 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.