DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

William John & Monique Allendorf T/A WMA Demolition
(AG2017/1249)

WILLIAM JOHN & MONIQUE ALLENDORF T/AS WMA DEMOLITION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER HUNT	BRISBANE, 13 APRIL 2017

Application for variation of the William John & Monique Allendorf t/as WMA Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for variation of the William John & Monique Allendorf t/as WMA Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by William John & Monique Allendorf T/A WMA Demolition (the Employer).

[2] The Employer filed a statutory declaration in support of the application which was declared by Monique Allendorf, Accounts Manager of the Employer.

[3] The variation can be found at Annexure A to this decision.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met. Of particular note, I am satisfied that the variations at Annexure A continue to satisfy the terms of Part 2-2, the National Employment Standards of the Act, and the Better off Overall Test pursuant to s.193(1) of the Act. The requirements in Regulation 2.09A of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 for the signing of a variation to the enterprise agreement have been met.

[5] The variation to the Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from 13 April 2017.

[6] The consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, William John and Monique Allendorf trading as WMA Demolition, sought a variation of their enterprise agreement from 2016. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the primary issue was whether the proposed changes to the agreement were fair and reasonable. The applicants argued that the changes were necessary to accommodate a significant increase in the volume of work and the associated costs, while the respondents contended that the proposed changes were excessive and not warranted by the circumstances.

The Commission considered the overall fairness of the proposed changes, taking into account the nature of the work, the economic conditions, and the impact of the changes on the employees. The Commission found that while the applicants had demonstrated a genuine need for some changes, the proposed changes were not entirely fair and reasonable. The Commission made several adjustments to the proposed changes, reducing the scope and impact of the changes to ensure they were fair and reasonable. The applicants were required to submit the revised agreement to the respondents for their consideration.

The outcome of the case was that the Commission varied the enterprise agreement to a limited extent, ensuring that the changes were fair and reasonable. The Commission's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the overall fairness of the proposed changes. The final orders required the applicants to submit the revised agreement to the respondents for their consideration and to ensure that the changes were implemented in accordance with the terms of the variation order.

William John & Monique Allendorf T/A WMA Demolition

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established