Hay Point Enterprise Agreement

The starting point for the interpretation of an enterprise agreement is the usual meaning of the words, read as a whole and in the context: City of Wanneroo v Holmes [1989] FCA 369; (1989) 30 IR 362 to 378 (French J). The interpretation “… addresses the language of each agreement, understood in the light of its industrial context and its objective … Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10; 222 CLR 241 to [2] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J). Words should not be interpreted in a vacuum separate from industrial realities (Holmes with 378); on the contrary, industrial agreements are concluded for different industrial sectors, taking into account customs and working conditions, and they are often taken in terms understandable to the parties, but without the careful attention to form and construction expected to be found in an Act of Parliament (Holmes 378-9, referring to Geo A Bond – Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR (NSW) 498 to 503 (Street)J). Similarly, it was said that the authors of such documents were probably of a “practical suspicion” and that they may be more concerned with expressing an intention in a way that could be understood in the industry concerned than with legal kindness and jargon, so that an appropriate interpretation is appropriate and a narrow or childish approach is inoperative. See Kucks v CSR Limited (1996) 66 IR 182-184 (Madgwick J); Shop Distributive and Allied Employees` Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 67 to [16] (Marshall, Tracey and Flick JJ); Amcor at [96] (Kirby J). In the event of current applications, the links below allow access to the agreement or amendment. These published documents are usually published within 3 business days of publication. In reviewing the terms of an enterprise agreement that allows an employer to charge appropriate overtime, the Bundesgerichtshof decided that the increase in the number of overtime hours by the employer could constitute a violation of the agreement.1 Senior Partner Tarsha Gavin and lawyer Millie Grant report. The Construction, Forestry, Navigation, Mining and Energy Union claimed that an employer, Hays Point Services (HPS), had breached the terms of an enterprise agreement by implementing a service table requiring employees to work up to 455 hours of overtime per year (8.7 hours per week). This went beyond the definition of appropriate overtime in the agreement, which amounted to about 104 hours of overtime per year. The list of applications includes the applicant`s number, the name of the agreement, the title of the agreement, economic activity, the date the application was filed, the approval or difference of the application, and the status of the application.

Once an application has been approved or rejected, it will no longer appear in the list below.