DECISION

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

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd
(AG2015/427)

ADELAIDE BRIGHTON CEMENT LTD ACCOLADE II/MUA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Maritime industry
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 20 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd Accolade II/MUA Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd Accolade II/MUA Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] In so finding, I note that whilst the NES provisions are not expressly included in the Agreement they will continue to operate by virtue of the not-inconsistent provisions of the Award (clause 7) and the operation of the NES under the Act.

[4] The Maritime Union of Australia, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 27 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited sought approval of the Accolade II/MUA Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to decide whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the Maritime Union of Australia contended that it did not adequately represent the interests of the workers.

The Commission examined whether the agreement provided for genuine bargaining, whether it included all necessary provisions, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining obligations. The Commission noted that while the agreement contained provisions for enterprise-level bargaining and included mandatory terms and conditions, it did not provide for adequate representation of workers' interests in certain areas. The Commission found that the agreement did not fully meet the requirements for approval as it failed to adequately address some of the key issues relevant to the workforce.

As a result, the Commission did not grant approval to the agreement. The Commission found that the agreement needed to be revised to ensure that it provided for genuine bargaining and adequately represented the interests of the workers. The Commission directed the parties to engage in further negotiations to address the shortcomings identified and to submit an amended agreement for approval once those issues were resolved. The final orders included directions for the parties to undertake further negotiations and to submit an amended agreement for consideration by the Commission.

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established