Austchrome Pty Ltd T/A Austchrome

[2022] FWCA 4064

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Austchrome Pty Ltd T/A Austchrome

(AG2022/4644)

Austchrome Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER HUNT	BRISBANE, 18 NOVEMBER 2022

Application for approval of the Austchrome Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022

Austchrome Pty Ltd T/A Austchrome (the Employer) has applied for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Austchrome Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

I have taken into consideration the material filed in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account s.186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the AMWU.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 25 November 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Austchrome Pty Ltd T/A Austchrome sought approval of the Austchrome Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2022, a matter which came before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved the procedural and substantive fairness of the agreement reached between Austchrome and its employees, represented by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). The SDA argued that the agreement was not fairly negotiated and did not adequately protect employees’ interests.

The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the enterprise agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it met the requirements for procedural and substantive fairness. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess if there was proper consultation and negotiation, and whether the agreement provided fair terms and conditions for the employees. The SDA contended that the negotiations were inadequate, with significant terms being imposed without sufficient input from the employees.

The Commission found that the negotiation process was generally robust, with both parties engaging in extensive discussions and exchanges. The agreement was considered to provide fair terms and conditions, addressing key issues such as wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions. The Commission determined that the agreement met the necessary standards of procedural and substantive fairness and approved the enterprise agreement. The final orders confirmed the approval and mandated that the agreement be implemented according to the specified terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established