DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Barclay Engineering
(AG2016/4641)

BARCLAY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	HOBART, 22 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Barclay Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Barclay Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Barclay Engineering. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 September 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Barclay Engineering, the Fair Work Commission was asked to determine the approval of the Barclay Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2016. The dispute involved the applicant, the employer, seeking approval for the proposed enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union was the representative of the employees. The union contested the approval on the grounds that the agreement did not meet the 'better off overall test' and contained provisions that were not reasonably capable of being in the employees' best interests.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement satisfied the requirements of section 234 of the Fair Work Act, specifically the 'better off overall test', and whether the provisions were reasonably capable of being in the employees' best interests as required by section 235. The Commission examined the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed agreement's terms and conditions, including wages, penalty rates, allowances, and other employment conditions. The Commission also considered the submissions from both parties and the implications of the agreement on the employees' overall entitlements and conditions.

After thorough consideration of the submissions and the provisions of the proposed agreement, the Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the 'better off overall test'. The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not provide employees with adequate protection and did not offer a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions of employment. The Commission determined that the agreement contained provisions that were not reasonably capable of being in the employees' best interests, particularly in relation to the wage rates and the process for resolving disputes. The Commission did not approve the agreement, thereby preventing its enforcement as a registered agreement.

No orders were made as the agreement was not approved.

Ainsbury Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Barclay Engineering

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established