ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd

[2024] FWCA 4030

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd

(AG2024/4007)

ARA ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PTY LTD INGLEBURN BRANCH SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2022

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS	SYDNEY, 27 NOVEMBER 2024

Application for variation of the ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd lngleburn Branch Single Enterprise Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd lngleburn Branch Single Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made by ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 4 December 2024.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd sought variation of the ARA Electrical Engineering Services Pty Ltd Ingleton Branch Single Enterprise Agreement 2022. The dispute arose between the employer and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETUA) and related to the terms and conditions of employment for certain employees under the mentioned agreement. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations to the agreement were justifiable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The variations included changes to shift patterns, allowances, and overtime provisions. The ETUA contested these changes, arguing that they were detrimental to employee welfare and did not meet the criteria for a fair and reasonable workplace agreement. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the changes were necessary to meet operational demands and ensure business sustainability.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and assessed the variations against the principles of fairness and reasonableness. It considered factors such as the impact on employee working conditions, the employer's operational needs, and the overall fairness of the proposed changes. After thorough deliberation, the Commission found that the proposed variations were reasonable and justifiable. The changes were designed to address specific operational challenges while maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the employer and the employees.

The Commission approved the variations to the agreement, allowing the employer to implement the changes as proposed. The ETUA was directed to inform its members of the approved variations and to take steps to ensure compliance with the new terms. This decision provides clarity on the scope of permissible changes under the Fair Work Act and reinforces the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced approach to workplace agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established