DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1769)

ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD SEAGOING RATINGS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (RTM) 2012

Maritime industry
COMMISSIONER CRIBB	MELBOURNE, 20 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd Seagoing Ratings Enterprise Agreement (RTM) 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd Seagoing Ratings Enterprise Agreement (RTM) 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 30 January 2015.

[3] 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.

[4] The agreement does not contain a consultation provision in the terms of s.205 of the Act. 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, and will be appended to the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement does not contain a flexibility clause. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement, and will be appended to the Agreement.

[6] The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[7] The Agreement was approved in Chambers on 20 February 2015 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 27 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd, sought approval of the ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd Seagoing Ratings Enterprise Agreement (RTM) 2012 from the Fair Work Commission. The application arose from negotiations between the employer and the Maritime Union of Australia, representing the employees. The Federal Court was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Commission to approve the agreement, focusing on whether the approval process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission had adhered to the correct legal standards when approving the enterprise agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Commission properly considered the implications of the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether there was any procedural unfairness. The court also had to assess whether the agreement met the requirements for registration and if it was in the best interests of the employees.

In examining the matter, the court found that the Fair Work Commission had followed the correct procedures and applied the appropriate legal standards. The Commission had adequately considered the implications of the agreement and had not acted unfairly in its decision-making process. The court also confirmed that the agreement met all necessary requirements for registration and was in the best interests of the employees. Consequently, the court upheld the Commission's decision to approve the enterprise agreement.

The court's decision resulted in the approval of the ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd Seagoing Ratings Enterprise Agreement (RTM) 2012. The agreement was registered, and the parties were bound by its terms. The court's ruling affirmed the process and outcome of the Fair Work Commission, providing clarity and finality to the matter.

ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established