DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited T/A Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(AG2016/4683)

BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY LIMITED - PRODUCTION - WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited - Production - Workplace Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited - Production - Workplace 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 Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited T/A Bridgestone Australia Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application by Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited, trading as Bridgestone Australia Ltd, for the approval of their 2015 workplace agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with assessing whether the agreement met the necessary requirements for approval. The dispute arose from the negotiation process and the terms proposed in the agreement, with concerns about whether the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees.

The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the agreement had been genuinely bargained for, whether it contained terms that were fair and reasonable in all respects, and whether it complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider whether the agreement's terms were in line with the broader objectives of the Act, including maintaining and promoting conditions that were fair and supported productivity and economic performance.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement had indeed been genuinely bargained for, as evidenced by the negotiation process and the involvement of both parties. The commission considered the terms of the agreement to be fair and reasonable, noting that they provided for a balance of interests between the employer and employees. The agreement was found to comply with the Act, including provisions for minimum rates of pay, leave entitlements, and other conditions that were deemed adequate. The commission concluded that the agreement was in the interests of fairness and productivity, and therefore granted the approval sought by Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited.

The final orders of the commission approved the 2015 workplace agreement between Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited and the relevant employees, effective from the date of the decision. The agreement was recognised as a valid and approved enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act, providing a framework for the employment conditions of the parties involved.

Bandag Manufacturing Pty Limited T/A Bridgestone Australia Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established