In the first instance, the Commission approved the Sigma (Berrinba) 2017 Enterprise Agreement. The applicant submitted five grounds, but full Bench had to be seized only on the first ground. The applicant submitted that the Commission had rendered the agreement by the Commission because the applicant had participated in the agreement as a representative of the negotiations, but that it had not been informed that Sigma had asked the Commission to approve the agreement. The full-fledged bank found that leave to appeal should be granted in this case, as the complaint raised important questions about the proper design of Rule 24, paragraph 3 of the Fair Work Commission rules. On appeal, the full-fledged bank agreed that the clause should be ambiguous. It found, however, that two errors in the circumstances of the environment had been revealed in the trial decision. Lawrence DP relied on the subjective evidence relating to the 1999 enterprise agreement, not objective evidence of the negotiation of the agreement that was the subject of the litigation. He also falsely alleged the conduct of the parties under the agreement. Or maybe the problem is not finding the right words, but putting them together. It was found by the courts that draft enterprise agreements were sometimes more aimed at “expressing an intention in a way that was probably understood in the context of the relevant industry environment and labour relations rather than with legal kindness or technical jargon” (Kucks/CSR Ltd. 1. The AI Act does not apply to the implementation of an enterprise agreement under the law.
5. If the language of the agreement is ambiguous or subject to more than one meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstance is admissible to support the interpretation of the agreement. Include a lawyer with experience in enterprise agreements, if only to verify the final project before the parties execute it. A clause such as this in this case would not survive (hopefully) a legal audit, and it is much cheaper to take into account production defects at this stage than to wait for them to flourish in a long quarrel. The facts of this case are really not that important, because it is difficult to get excited about the “linen”. However, the decision is important to set rules for the implementation of enterprise agreements. This decision confirms that the Fair Labour Commission will take a favourable and reasonable approach to the interpretation of industrial instruments. While the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of an agreement – such as statements in negotiations, prior conduct and subjective intentions – may be taken into account in ambiguities, such issues are not taken into account when a clause in the agreement has clear meaning. While this dispute concerns the calculation of makeup treatment, it is a useful warning to employers to carefully review the text of the agreements during the negotiation process and to avoid any assumption that the conditions previously prevailing in a staff will not be maintained without explicit consent. Full Bench found that there had been an error in approving the agreement. However, in the first case, the Commission could not have known that the applicant was or was in charge of the negotiations. On the other hand, the information provided in the complaint indicated that Sigma knew that the complainant had been designated as a bargaining representative for a worker who would be subject to the agreement.