Hay Point Enterprise Agreement

The Tribunal considered an earlier decision (Amcor2) which decided that the interpretation of company agreements should not be strict, but should contribute to a “reasonable industrial result”. Given that it was made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the agreement must be considered compatible with the law. Given that National Employment Standards (NES) limit the maximum working hours of workers, the restriction imposed on HPS must be considered to be the only `reasonable industrial result`. In accordance with the authorities, the review of cl.16.7 should include the text of the clause, the agreement as a whole, the legal framework and the history of the clause.¬†The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union claimed that an employer, Hays Point Services (HPS), breached the terms of a company agreement by implementing a roster requiring employees to work up to 455 hours of overtime per year (or 8.7 hours per week). This went beyond the definition of adequate overtime in the agreement, which was about 104 hours of overtime per year. Once an application has been approved or rejected, it is no longer listed below. To find an agreement that has been approved or modified, please find an agreement. Please indicate your name, matter number and the name of the agreement. A team member should contact them within 2 business days.

This is the reason why HPS did not violate the agreement. At that time, it was not necessary to verify whether the obligation for workers to work 455 hours of overtime per year was “inappropriate overtime”. The Fair Work Commission can also help employers and workers negotiate with their New Approaches programme. Read more about The New Approaches on the Fair Work Commission website. The starting point for interpreting a company agreement is the ordinary meaning of the words, read as a whole and in context: City of Wanneroo v Holmes [1989] FCA 369; (1989) 30 IR 362 at 378 (French J). Interpretation”. use the language of the agreement concerned, understood in the light of its industrial context and its objective …¬†Amcor Limited vs. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10; (2005) 222 CLR 241 to [2] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J). .

. .