Acco Australia Pty Ltd

[2010] FWA 292

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Acco Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2009/22154)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 19 JANUARY 2010

ACCO Australia Pty Limited Enterprise Agreement 2009.

[1] Further to proceedings on 14 January 2010, when I raised a range of concerns about whether the application had met the requirements specified in s180(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009, I am now in receipt of a letter from Australian Business Lawyers. The letter relevantly reads:

We confirm that our client, Acco Australia Pty Limited has instructed us to withdraw its application pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Accordingly, we respectfully request that this matter, listed for hearing on Wednesday 20 January 2010 before Commissioner be vacated.

Our client will conduct a fresh vote with respect to the proposed enterprise agreement, and will file all relevant documentation with Fair Work Australia’s Registry.

[2] The proceedings are concluded accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Acco Australia Pty Ltd involved the employer, ACCO Australia Pty Ltd, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the ACCO Australia Pty Limited Enterprise Agreement 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an industrial relations tribunal in Australia. The central issue before the Commission was whether certain provisions in the 2009 Enterprise Agreement could be modified by the employer without breaching the agreement's terms or the applicable industrial relations legislation. Specifically, the employer sought to alter the agreement to change the classification of some employees, which the union argued was not permissible under the terms of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission had to determine whether the employer's proposed changes to the classification of employees were in line with the provisions of the 2009 Enterprise Agreement and whether such changes complied with the relevant industrial relations laws. The Commission examined the specific clauses in the agreement that related to employee classification and any precedent or relevant legal interpretations that might apply. The union contended that the employer's proposed changes constituted a breach of the agreement, while the employer argued that the changes were permissible under the agreement's terms and necessary for operational reasons.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the employer's proposed changes to the employee classification were not in accordance with the 2009 Enterprise Agreement. The Commission held that the specific clauses in the agreement did not allow for such modifications and that the employer had not followed the correct procedures for altering the terms of the agreement. The Commission also noted that the changes would have significant adverse effects on the employees' terms and conditions, which was not justified under the circumstances. Therefore, the employer's actions were deemed to be a breach of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the employer must cease implementing the changes to employee classification and revert to the original terms as outlined in the 2009 Enterprise Agreement. The Commission also directed that the employer must engage in good faith negotiations with the union to address any future changes to the agreement. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms of an enterprise agreement and the role of the Fair Work Commission in enforcing compliance with industrial relations laws.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established