| [2024] FWCA 3707 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Application by Tamara Hart
(AG2024/3876)
ITW POLYMERS AND FLUIDS AUSTRALIA AND UNITED WORKERS UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023
| Manufacturing and associated industries | |
| COMMISSIONER REDFORD | MELBOURNE, 30 OCTOBER 2024 |
Application for approval of the ITW Polymers and Fluids Australia and United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2023
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ITW Polymers and Fluids Australia and United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2023 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tamara Hart. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Employer 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 s will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.
Noting clause 7 of the Agreement (the NES precedence clause), I am satisfied that to the extent the Agreement is less favourable than the National Employment Standards (NES), the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency. On this basis, I am satisfied that matters outlined below do not prevent the approval of this agreement:
- Clause 30.5 of the Agreement provides compassionate leave where a member of an employee’s immediate family or household contracts or develops a serious illness or sustains a serious injury or dies however it is silent in relation to compassionate leave for stillbirth/miscarriage as is provided by s.104(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. On the basis of the NES precedence clause, the superior entitlement provided for in the NES will apply.
- Clause 16.2.2 of the Agreement appears to provide that in the case of termination, if an employee does not give the required notice, the employer may withhold from monies due to the employee a maximum amount equal to the amount the employee should have received. This clause appears to permit the employer to deduct monies from employee’s entitlements under the NES (such as notice of termination, accrued but unused annual leave or long service leave on termination). Accordingly, this clause may be inconsistent with Chapter 2 Part 2.2 Division 2 of the Act however, when read in conjunction with the NES precedence clause (clause 7) it will have no effect to the extent of any inconsistency.
The United 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.
On the basis of the foregoing and 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.
The Agreement is approved. While it appears to provide for commencement on or after 1 December 2023, as I have advised the parties, it shall operate in accordance with s.54(1)(a) of the Act, from 6 November 2024.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE526498 PR780556>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Application by Tamara Hart [2024] FWCA 3707
- Case
- [2024] FWCA 3707
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, and if it met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. This included assessing if the agreement adequately protected the interests of the employees, and if the bargaining process was conducted fairly. The court needed to determine whether the agreement's terms were fair and reasonable, and if it could be certified despite any potential issues.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The court was concerned that certain provisions within the agreement did not adequately protect the employees' interests, particularly in relation to redundancy and termination provisions. The commission concluded that the agreement could not be approved in its current form due to these deficiencies. As a result, the application for approval was dismissed.
Consequently, the Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, and the enterprise agreement could not be certified. The commission also recommended that the parties revisit the agreement to address the identified shortcomings and resubmit it for approval once those issues were rectified.
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.