DECISION

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

Barkuma Inc
(AG2015/7843)

BARKUMA INC ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015 NO 7

Clerical industry
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 11 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the Barkuma Inc Enterprise Agreement 2015 No 7.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Barkuma Inc Enterprise Agreement 2015 No 7 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Barkuma Inc. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 18 January 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Barkuma Inc, an applicant, sought approval of the Barkuma Inc Enterprise Agreement 2015 No 7. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, an objecting party. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement complied with the relevant statutory provisions, including the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009. Specifically, the union argued that certain clauses within the agreement did not meet the requirements for a fair and efficient workplace, particularly regarding employee conditions and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The commission examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the procedural fairness of the agreement, its alignment with the principles of the Fair Work Act, and whether it provided adequate protections for employees. The union contended that several provisions were deficient in terms of procedural fairness, such as the lack of employee involvement in the negotiation process and the absence of clear and accessible dispute resolution procedures. Barkuma Inc defended the agreement, asserting that it had been negotiated in good faith and that it met the statutory requirements for approval.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the commission determined that the agreement did not comply with the statutory requirements for procedural fairness. The commission found that the negotiation process did not adequately involve employees, and several provisions were unclear or inaccessible. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The commission also issued directions for the agreement to be revised to address the identified deficiencies before it could be reconsidered for approval.

No specific orders were made regarding the revision of the agreement, but the commission indicated that any revised agreement would need to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements for procedural fairness and provide clear protections for employees.

Barkuma Inc

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established