Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (No 2) [2016] FCA 2
The incentive payment system contained in the Remuneration Document was validly incorporated into the Teys Bros (Beenleigh) Pty Ltd / AMIEU Production Departments Enterprise Agreement 2010 on 23 November 2009 by operation of clause 3.10.1, authorised by s 257 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and was not invalidated by the argument that incorporation must occur only at the time the agreement is made or by the variation scheme under Division 7 of the Act. If the incorporation facilitated a variation, it was nevertheless permitted within the scheme established by the Act. There is no reason to read down s 257 as requiring material to exist only at the time the agreement is made nor to treat clause...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 January 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Application for Declaratory Relief / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['enterprise Agreements' 'incorporation of Terms' 'variation of Agreements' 'fair Work Act Interpretation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Originating Application for Declaratory Relief / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the incentive payment system in the Remuneration Document was validly incorporated into the 2010 Enterprise Agreement by clause 3.10.1' 'Whether s 257 Fair Work Act 2009 authorises post-making incorporation' 'Whether such incorporation constitutes a variation of the agreement and whether the scheme for variation under the FW Act must be followed' 'Whether clause 3.10.1 is a facilitative provision']
Ratio Decidendi
The incentive payment system contained in the Remuneration Document was validly incorporated into the Teys Bros (Beenleigh) Pty Ltd / AMIEU Production Departments Enterprise Agreement 2010 on 23 November 2009 by operation of clause 3.10.1, authorised by s 257 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and was not invalidated by the argument that incorporation must occur only at the time the agreement is made or by the variation scheme under Division 7 of the Act. If the incorporation facilitated a variation, it was nevertheless permitted within the scheme established by the Act. There is no reason to read down s 257 as requiring material to exist only at the time the agreement is made nor to treat clause...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' 'Unless an application is made for costs within 7 days hereof, there be no order as to costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment