Apache Energy Limited

Case [2013] FWCA 910


[2013] FWCA 910

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Apache Energy Limited
(AG2013/4607)

APACHE ENERGY LTD STAG CPF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Oil and gas industry

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 8 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Apache Energy Ltd Stag CPF Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] On 18 January 2013, Apache Energy Limited made application for approval of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Apache Energy Ltd Stag CPF Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The Agreement was made following a ballot on 11 January 2013.

[3] The Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section, s.187 and s.188 are met.

[4] Pursuant to s.190 of the FW Act, the Applicant has provided an undertaking that in Clause 17: Resolution of Employee Relations Disputes, an employee can appoint a representative of their choice for the purposes of consultation.

[5] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186, 187 and 188, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[6] The Agreement is approved and will, in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act, operate from 15 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of this Agreement is 7 February 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, AE899792  PR533935>

Details
AGLC
Apache Energy Limited [2013] FWCA 910
Case
[2013] FWCA 910
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Apache Energy Limited was the applicant in the Fair Work Commission, seeking approval for the Apache Energy Ltd Stag CPF Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The dispute arose as the company sought to implement changes to its workforce structure, including the creation of new roles and the reclassification of certain positions. The application was contested by a union representing some of the employees affected by the proposed changes. The matter was brought before the Commission to determine whether the proposed agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues the Commission was required to address involved whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, provided adequate protections for employees, and met the criteria for approval under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement was made in good faith, whether it included appropriate minimum terms and conditions, and if it complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employee interests and was not genuinely negotiated, while the applicant contended that the changes were necessary for business efficiency and were fairly negotiated.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the negotiation process and the content of the agreement. The Commission found that the applicant had demonstrated that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and that the changes proposed were reasonable in the circumstances. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided adequate protections for employees and met the statutory requirements for approval. Consequently, the Commission approved the application, noting that the agreement would provide stability and clarity for both the employer and the workforce moving forward.

The final orders of the Commission were that the Apache Energy Ltd Stag CPF Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 be approved and registered, effective from the date of the decision. The agreement was to be deemed to have come into operation from the date of the approval, and the Commission emphasised the importance of both parties adhering to the terms and conditions outlined in the approved agreement.

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.