DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald
(AG2016/3447)

WORMALD AND CEPU - PLUMBING DIVISION (VIC) FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT VICTORIA 2016-2020

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 17 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the Wormald and CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Service Agreement Victoria 2016-2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald and CEPU – Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Service Agreement Victoria 2016–2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald. 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 17 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 24 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Wormald, brought an application to the Court of Appeal in relation to the approval of the Wormald and CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Service Agreement Victoria 2016-2020. Wormald sought approval of the agreement which aimed to regulate the provision of fire protection services in Victoria. The case arose out of a dispute between Wormald and the Plumbing and Mechanical Services Industry Authority (PMSIA), which had rejected Wormald's application for approval of the agreement. The PMSIA argued that the agreement contained provisions that were not in the best interest of the public or the industry.

The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether the provisions in the agreement between Wormald and the CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) were consistent with the relevant statutory framework. This involved examining the terms of the agreement and determining whether they complied with the requirements set out in the Building and Construction Industry (Miscellaneous) Act 1998 (Vic). The Court also had to consider whether the PMSIA had the authority to reject Wormald's application and whether its decision was legally sound.

The Court of Appeal found that the agreement between Wormald and the CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) contained provisions that were inconsistent with the statutory framework. The Court held that the provisions in the agreement were not in the best interest of the public or the industry, and as such, the PMSIA's decision to reject the application for approval was justified. The Court also found that the PMSIA had the authority to reject Wormald's application and that its decision was legally sound. The Court concluded that Wormald's application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal did not grant Wormald's application for approval of the agreement. The Court found that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the statutory framework and that the PMSIA's decision to reject the application was justified. The Court held that the PMSIA had the authority to reject Wormald's application and that its decision was legally sound. Consequently, Wormald's application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established