Applus RTD Pty Ltd

Case [2017] FWCA 4998


[2017] FWCA 4998
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Applus RTD Pty Ltd
(AG2017/3077)

APPLUS RTD PTY LTD VICTORIAN NDT AGREEMENT 2017 - 2020

Manufacturing and associated industries

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the Applus RTD Pty Ltd Victorian NDT Agreement 2017 - 2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Applus RTD Pty Ltd Victorian NDT Agreement 2017 - 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Applus RTD 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] 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.

[4] 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.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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 October 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE425557  PR596371>

Details
AGLC
Applus RTD Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 4998
Case
[2017] FWCA 4998
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Applus RTD Pty Ltd, a company engaged in non-destructive testing services, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). The dispute arose under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the approval of the Applus RTD Pty Ltd Victorian NDT Agreement 2017 - 2020. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement should be approved as a new-style agreement, as defined under section 232 of the Act. The AMWU contested the approval, arguing that the agreement did not meet the requirements for a new-style agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the statutory criteria for a new-style agreement, including provisions on minimum wages and conditions, and whether it appropriately balanced the interests of employees and the employer. The Commission needed to assess whether the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees and if it adhered to the principles of fairness and reasonableness as outlined in the Act.

In its decision, the Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for approval as a new-style agreement. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not adequately provide for the minimum wages and conditions of employment and failed to achieve a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of employees and the employer. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that new-style agreements comply with the legislative requirements and adequately address the needs of both parties involved.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Applus RTD Pty Ltd Victorian NDT Agreement 2017 - 2020 be not approved. This ruling underscores the necessity for such agreements to meet specific statutory criteria, ensuring that they provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees while balancing the interests of employers.

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.