Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 5099

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7556)

BATA SHOE COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA - TCFUA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Textile industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 26 JULY 2013

Bata Shoe Company of Australia - TCFUA Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bata Shoe Company of Australia - TCFUA Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty Ltd. 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 Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 2 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Bata Shoe Company of Australia Pty Ltd, which brought an action against the Transport, Forwarding and Maritime Union of Australia (TCFUA). The dispute centred on the interpretation and enforcement of the TCFUA Enterprise Agreement 2013, which governed employment terms and conditions for workers within the company. The Fair Work Commission, which adjudicated the matter, had to determine whether certain provisions of the agreement were valid and whether the union had breached the agreement by engaging in protected industrial action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were the validity of specific clauses in the Enterprise Agreement, particularly those related to the imposition of certain work conditions and the scope of protected industrial action. The company argued that the union had acted beyond the limits of the agreement by engaging in industrial action that was not authorised by the agreement. The union, on the other hand, contended that its actions were within the bounds of the agreement and that the company had misinterpreted the clauses in question.

The Commission, after careful consideration of the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the union's actions were indeed within the scope of protected industrial action as defined by the agreement. The Commission held that the clauses in question did not impose the conditions that the company argued they did and that the union's actions were justified under the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the company's application for an injunction to restrain the union from continuing the industrial action was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission's decision upheld the union's right to engage in protected industrial action as per the terms of the Enterprise Agreement. The company was ordered to cease any further attempts to restrain the union from taking industrial action that was authorised by the agreement. This ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to the terms of enterprise agreements and the rights of unions to engage in protected industrial action within those terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established