AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWCA 5532


[2014] FWCA 5532
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1747)

AE SMITH & SON (SEQ) PTY LTD ICHTHYS ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT

Northern Territory

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 14 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd. The agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[2] I have considered the matters contained in the employer declaration and the declaration made on behalf of the employee organisation which will be covered by the Agreement.

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

[4] In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the Australian Workers’ Union & Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, the relevant employee organisations which will be covered by the Agreement, are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement, in relation to work to be performed under the Agreement; and it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement in order to provide certainty as to employment terms and conditions, in the terms agreed between the parties.

[5] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.185 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.

[6] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.185 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.

[7] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.185 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.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 21 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 20 August 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE409599  PR554252>

Details
AGLC
AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 5532
Case
[2014] FWCA 5532
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd sought approval of the AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement, made under section 194 of the Fair Work Act 2009, proposed changes to the terms and conditions of employment for employees in the Greenfields business of AE Smith & Son (SEQ) Pty Ltd. The respondents, including various unions, opposed the application on the grounds that the proposed changes did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes were in the interests of the employees and whether they were made in good faith. The Commission needed to determine if the changes were necessary to facilitate the proposed Greenfields project and if the company had acted fairly and reasonably in proposing the changes. The unions argued that the proposed changes would result in a significant reduction in employee entitlements and would not be in the interests of the employees.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the proposed changes were necessary to facilitate the Greenfields project and were in the interests of the employees. The Commission also found that the changes were made in good faith and that the company had acted reasonably in proposing them. The Commission approved the application and authorised the making of the agreement. The unions' opposition was dismissed, and the proposed changes were allowed to proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.