Legal Research
Cases
Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd

Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWCFB 1151 15 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2015] FWCA 8004[Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2016/8065) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 15 April 2016 [[2016] FWCFB 1151] for result of appeal.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd
(AG2015/4301)

HARBOUR CITY FERRIES MARITIME AGREEMENT 2015

Port authorities
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 20 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Harbour City Ferries Maritime Agreement 2015.

[1] This Decision should be read in conjunction with the Decision [PR574181] which was made in respect to this matter and a related scope order application.

[2] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Harbour City Ferries Maritime Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[3] The application was lodged at Sydney on 12 August 2015. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Darrin Moy made on behalf of the Employer and dated 12 August 2015 (the Declaration). The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 30 July 2015. Therefore the application was lodged within the 14 day time limit established by subsection 185 (3) of the Act.

[4] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural and substantive requirements that must be satisfied before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) can approve of an enterprise agreement. The application for approval and the related scope order application (matter B2015/766), were the subject of a Hearing conducted on 9 and 12 October 2015.

[5] The Commission has provided more extensive reasons for a determination to grant the application for approval of the Agreement and refuse the related scope order application in a Decision [PR574181] which has been issued in conjunction with this Decision. Further to that Decision, I confirm that I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[6] I note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of John Wydell made on behalf of the Australian Maritime Officers' Union (the AMOU), as an employee organisation in relation to the application. I further note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of Joseph Fallone made on behalf of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (the AIMPE) as an employee organisation in relation to the application. I further note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of Adam Jacka made on behalf of the Maritime Union of Australia (the MUA) as an employee organisation in relation to the application.

[7] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term at clause 49 and a consultation term at clause 9.

[8] The AMOU, the AIMPE and the MUA, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, has each given notice under s.183 of the Act that each wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by subsection 201 (2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the AMOU, the AIMPE and the MUA.

[9] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act it will operate from 27 November 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement as specified in clause 6 of the Agreement, is 1 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd [2016] FWCFB 1151
Case: [2016] FWCFB 1151
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Maritime Officers' Union filed an application seeking approval of the Harbour City Ferries Maritime Agreement 2015. Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd opposed the application. The dispute arose under the Fair Work Act 2009, where the union sought to have the agreement registered as a greenfields agreement, which would provide it with a bargaining advantage over the employer in future negotiations. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the criteria for registration as a greenfields agreement. This required determining if the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable and if it provided for a fair and efficient workplace. Additionally, the Commission had to consider if the agreement was made in good faith and if the parties had genuinely negotiated the terms. The employer argued that the agreement was not fair and reasonable, and that it did not reflect the true nature of the employment relationship.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for a greenfields agreement. The Commission held that the agreement contained terms that were not fair and reasonable, and that it did not provide for a fair and efficient workplace. The Commission found that the employer had not genuinely negotiated the terms of the agreement, and that it had not acted in good faith. The application was dismissed, and the agreement was not registered.

The Commission's decision was based on its findings of fact and the application of the relevant statutory provisions. The employer's opposition to the application was successful, and the agreement was not registered as a greenfields agreement. The Commission's decision provides guidance for future negotiations between the parties and highlights the importance of good faith bargaining and fair and reasonable terms in workplace agreements.

Orders