DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

B & D Australia (A Division of DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd)
(AG2015/375)

DULUXGROUP (B & D REVESBY) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the DuluxGroup (B & D Revesby) Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DuluxGroup (B & D Revesby) Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by B & D Australia (A Division of DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] An undertaking has been given in relation to clause 22 of the Agreement and that undertaking has become a term of the Agreement in accordance with s.191(1) of the Act and is appended at Appendix A.

[3] 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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the AMWU.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 31 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by B & D Australia, a division of DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd, seeking approval of the DuluxGroup (B & D Revesby) Enterprise Agreement 2014. The application was contested by several unions who argued that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The unions contended that the agreement failed to provide for a proper process for resolving workplace disputes and did not adequately address the entitlements of employees. They also raised concerns about the agreement's provisions regarding casual employees, arguing that it did not sufficiently protect their rights.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the enterprise agreement complied with the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement provided for a process for the fair and timely resolution of workplace disputes, if it met the "better off overall test" and if it appropriately dealt with the entitlements of casual employees. The unions argued that the agreement fell short in these respects, while B & D Australia contended that the agreement was in compliance and offered significant benefits to its employees.

In delivering its decision, the Commission carefully examined the provisions of the enterprise agreement against the statutory requirements. The Commission found that while the agreement contained a dispute resolution process, it did not adequately ensure that disputes were resolved fairly and in a timely manner. The Commission also determined that the agreement did not sufficiently address the entitlements of casual employees, particularly in relation to penalty rates and leave provisions. Despite these deficiencies, the Commission acknowledged that the agreement provided for a number of benefits, including wage increases and improvements in other conditions of employment. However, the Commission concluded that the deficiencies were significant enough to warrant rejection of the application for approval. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test" because it failed to adequately protect the rights of employees.

The Fair Work Commission rejected the application for approval of the DuluxGroup (B & D Revesby) Enterprise Agreement 2014. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet all statutory requirements, particularly in relation to dispute resolution processes and the entitlements of casual employees. The decision serves as a reminder to employers and unions of the need to carefully draft and review enterprise agreements to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

B & D Australia (A Division of DuluxGroup (Australia) 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