Air Liquide W.A. Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 9767

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Air Liquide W.A. Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11855)

AIR LIQUIDE LARGE INDUSTRIES (KWINANA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 12 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Air Liquide Large Industries (Kwinana) Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Air Liquide Large Industries (Kwinana) Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Air Liquide W.A. Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union 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), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 19 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Air Liquide W.A. Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Air Liquide Large Industries (Kwinana) Enterprise Agreement 2013. The company and the union representing the employees were unable to reach an agreement on certain terms, leading to the application. The union argued that the proposed agreement did not adequately protect the employees' interests. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement provided for the employees' safety, health, and welfare; provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions; and did not discriminate against any employee. The union argued that the proposed agreement failed to adequately protect the employees' safety and health, and contained provisions that were discriminatory. The company, on the other hand, argued that the agreement met all the necessary criteria and provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not meet the criteria for approval. The Commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the employees' safety and health, and that the company had failed to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that the agreement met the necessary criteria. The Commission also found that the agreement contained provisions that were discriminatory, in breach of the Act. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the proposed agreement. The company was given the opportunity to revise the agreement and resubmit it for approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established