DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bayford Group Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2016)

BAYFORD GROUP PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Vehicle industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2016

Application for approval of the Bayford Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bayford Group Pty Ltd Enterprise 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 Bayford Group Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 12 February 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 19 February 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 February 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Bayford Group Pty Ltd sought approval of an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Bayford Group Pty Ltd, is an employer within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The agreement in question pertains to the terms and conditions of employment for its employees, who are part of the Maritime Officers Award [No. 5] 2010. The employees were represented by the Maritime Union of Australia, which also contested the approval of the agreement. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an administrative tribunal with specific expertise in employment relations matters.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and if it was made in good faith and without coercion. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements, such as providing adequate notice and opportunity for the union to comment. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the agreement did not disadvantage employees in a way that was contrary to public policy.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the Bayford Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 did indeed meet the statutory criteria for approval. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and that it was made in good faith without any evidence of coercion. The Commission also confirmed that the procedural requirements had been met, and that the agreement did not disadvantage employees in a way that was contrary to public policy. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Bayford Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015, finding it to be fair, reasonable and made in good faith. The agreement was deemed to comply with all statutory and procedural requirements.

Bayford Group 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