ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – approval – ss.185, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – at first instance the Commission approved the Sigma (Berrinba) Enterprise Agreement 2017 – appellant advanced five grounds of appeal, however it was only necessary for the Full Bench to deal with the first ground – the appellant contended that the Commission erred in approving the agreement in circumstances where the appellant was involved in the agreement making process as a bargaining representative, but had not been informed that Sigma had applied to the Commission for approval of the agreement – whether Sigma was required to serve its application for approval of the agreement on the appellant – relevant service rule required Sigma to serve a copy of its application for approval of the agreement on ‘each employee organisation that was a bargaining representative and any other employee bargaining representative of whom the applicant is aware’ – Full Bench found that permission to appeal should be granted in this matter, as the appeal raised important questions concerning the proper construction of rule 24(3) of the FWC rules – considered proper construction of the phrase ‘an employee organisation that was a bargaining representative for the proposed enterprise agreement’ in the context of s.183(1) of FW Act – Collinsville adopted – Full Bench of the view that rule 41(1) and Schedule 1 (Forms F16 and F17) of the FWC Rules require an applicant for approval of an enterprise agreement to serve a copy of the application (Form F16) and the employer’s statutory declaration in support of the application for approval (Form F17) on each employee organisation that was, at any time, a bargaining representative in relation to the enterprise agreement – Full Bench held that Sigma did not comply with that rule in connection with its application for approval of the agreement – the appellant was not aware that the application had been lodged until after the agreement was approved – as a result, the appellant was denied natural justice because it was not given an opportunity to make submissions as to why it should be heard in relation to the application for approval of the agreement – it follows that there was an error in the approval of the agreement – however, at first instance the Commission could not have had any knowledge, on the basis of the material before him, that the appellant was or had been a bargaining representative – in contrast, the material filed in the appeal indicates that Sigma knew that the appellant had been appointed as a bargaining representative for one employee who would be covered by the agreement – appeal upheld and decision at first instance quashed – matter referred to Asbury DP for rehearing. Appeal by National Union of Workers against decision of Gregory C of 30 May 2017 [[2017] FWCA 2940] Re: Sigma Company Limited t/a Sigma Healthcare
