WORRALL and BARTLEY

[2018] FWCA 132

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Coca Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd T/A Coca Cola Amatil

(AG2017/5981)

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2017 - 2020, Manufacturing, Western Australia

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
Commissioner Johns	SYDNEY, 8 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2017 - 2020, Manufacturing, Western Australia.

On 5 December 2017 Coca Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd T/A Coca Cola Amatil (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd – Enterprise Agreement 2017 – 2020, Manufacturing, Western Australia (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached as Annexure A. The Commission is satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, the Commission is satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

United Voice, 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), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers this organisation.

The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 15 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WORRALL and BARTLEY were the parties involved in this matter, which was a dispute concerning the parenting arrangements of their child. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, which is the primary court for dealing with family law matters in Australia. The case involved a lengthy 23-day trial, during which interim orders were made for the child's time with the mother. The orders also provided for a review by a single expert to offer recommendations on any possible extensions of the child's time with the mother. The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the role of the single expert in this matter and the principles that must be followed in child-related proceedings.

The court was required to consider the role of the single expert as a witness rather than a decision-maker. It was essential to ensure that the principles mandated for child-related proceedings were adhered to, particularly in the context of the single expert's recommendations. The court also needed to determine whether the orders made for a trial on limited issues were appropriate and whether the evidence presented and witnesses cross-examined were defined correctly. The court's decision would have significant implications for the parenting arrangements of the child and the roles of the parties involved.

The court found that the role of the single expert in this matter was primarily that of a witness, not a decision-maker. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the principles mandated for child-related proceedings, particularly in the context of the single expert's recommendations. The court also found that the orders made for a trial on limited issues were appropriate, and that the evidence presented and witnesses cross-examined were correctly defined. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented and the relevant legal principles.

The court made orders for a trial on limited issues, defining the evidence to be presented and witnesses to be cross-examined. The court also emphasised the importance of adhering to the principles mandated for child-related proceedings and the role of the single expert as a witness rather than a decision-maker. The court's decision will have significant implications for the parenting arrangements of the child and the roles of the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established