DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Australian Workers’ Union, The
(AG2016/5961)

HUNTSMAN POLYURETHANES AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 7 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Huntsman Polyurethanes Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Huntsman Polyurethanes Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by The Australian Workers’ Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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 the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] 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.

[4] The Australian Workers’ Union 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 7 November 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 14 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission was an application by the Australian Workers’ Union to approve the Huntsman Polyurethanes Agreement 2016. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment for workers at Huntsman Polyurethanes, and the union sought to have the agreement recognised as a certified agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval and certification.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the agreement provided for the terms and conditions of employment of the relevant workers in a manner that was compliant with the Fair Work Act. This involved examining the terms of the agreement, the process by which it was made, and whether it adhered to the legislative requirements for approved agreements. Specifically, the Commission needed to ensure that the agreement provided for minimum terms and conditions, was not less favourable than the applicable award or registered agreement, and was made in good faith.

The Commission found that the Huntsman Polyurethanes Agreement 2016 was appropriately certified. The agreement was concluded through a genuine process of negotiation, and it contained terms and conditions that were not less favourable than those provided by the relevant award. The Commission also noted that the agreement provided for minimum terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act. The application for approval was thus granted, and the agreement was certified as a registered agreement. This decision ensures that the terms and conditions of employment for workers at Huntsman Polyurethanes are governed by this agreement, providing them with a clear and legally binding framework for their employment.

Australian Workers’ Union, The

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established