ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWCA 1258

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd

(AG2025/657)

ARA MANUFACTURE PTY LTD (DERRIMUT) CBROS PHYSICAL SECURITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ALLISON	MELBOURNE, 23 APRIL 2025

Application for approval of the ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd (Derrimut) CBros Physical Security Enterprise Agreement 2025

ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application, pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd (Derrimut) CBros Physical Security Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement).

The agreement title on the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) that was issued to the employees was the “ARA MANUFACTURE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025” which does not match the title of the Agreement to be approved. I am satisfied that this was a minor procedural or technical error and that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by it. Accordingly, I exercise the discretion conferred by s.188(5) of the Act to disregard this error.

The Agreement does not contain a delegates’ rights term, as required by s.205A(1) of the Act. Under s.205A(2), the workplace delegates’ rights term in Clause 40A of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020 the Award) is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The following provisions may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):

Clause 15, relating to annual leave, expresses an employee’s entitlement to annual leave in days per year rather than weeks per year, inconsistent with s.87 of the Act.

Clause 26.3, relating to the notice period upon termination, may allow an employee to withhold monies due an employee upon termination and be inconsistent with s.117 of the Act.
Clause 26.7, relating to abandonment of employment, may allow the Employer to withhold termination monies due to an employee who has abandoned their employment, inconsistent with ss.117 and 123 of the Act.

The Employer provided an NES precedence undertaking to resolve the above concerns. Noting clause 9 of the Agreement and the provided undertaking, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

A copy of the undertaking is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertaking will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertaking will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertaking is taken to be a term of the agreement.

Subject to the undertaking 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 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 April 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 February 2028.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was made by ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd, seeking approval of their proposed enterprise agreement, the ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd (Derrimut) CBros Physical Security Enterprise Agreement 2025. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment for employees classified as 'physical security officers' under the proposed agreement, and whether these terms were fair and reasonable in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President L M S Smith, was tasked with determining the fairness of the proposed agreement.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the proposed agreement complied with the 'better off overall test' as stipulated in section 233 of the Fair Work Act. This test requires that employees be no worse off financially and not significantly worse off in other terms and conditions of employment. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement met the 'good faith' requirement as per section 230 of the Act, which mandates that the agreement be made in good faith and without coercion. The Commission also had to ensure that the agreement did not contravene any provisions of the National Employment Standards.

After reviewing the submissions from both parties and considering the evidence presented, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable. The Commission determined that the agreement met the better off overall test, as employees would not be worse off financially and only experienced minor detriments in other terms and conditions. Furthermore, the Commission was satisfied that the agreement was made in good faith and did not contravene any provisions of the National Employment Standards. Consequently, the Commission approved the ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd (Derrimut) CBros Physical Security Enterprise Agreement 2025.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the proposed enterprise agreement was approved, and it will now govern the employment terms and conditions of the 'physical security officers' at ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd. This decision ensures that the employees are protected under a fair and reasonable agreement, while also providing the employer with the flexibility to manage their workforce effectively.

ARA Manufacture Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established