DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Basetec Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6427)

BASETEC SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 31 OCTOBER 2016

Application for approval of the Basetec Services Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Basetec Services Enterprise 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 Basetec Services Pty 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.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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 October 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Basetec Services Pty Ltd, the applicant sought approval of the Basetec Services Enterprise Agreement 2016. The dispute arose under the Fair Work Act 2009 and was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant, Basetec Services, is an employer, while the respondents, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), represent the employees. The primary issue before the court was whether the agreement met the requirements for registration under the Act, specifically whether it complied with the good faith bargaining provisions and was in the best interests of the employees.

The court examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated to determine if it was conducted in good faith. The applicant argued that the negotiation process was fair and transparent, while the respondents contended that it was not, alleging coercion and undue influence. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the negotiation process, the fairness of the terms of the agreement, and whether it promoted harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations. The court also assessed whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, taking into account the provisions and protections offered by the agreement.

After a thorough analysis of the evidence and submissions, the court found that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and that the terms of the agreement were fair. The court concluded that the agreement met the statutory requirements for registration and was in the best interests of the employees. As a result, the court approved the Basetec Services Enterprise Agreement 2016 and ordered its registration with the Fair Work Commission. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements and ensuring that they are negotiated and agreed upon in good faith.

Basetec Services 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