DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Beiersdorf Australia Limited T/A Beiersdorf Australia Limited
(AG2016/2216)

BEIERSDORF AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED LOGISTICS DIVISION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Storage services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Beiersdorf Australia Limited Logistics Division Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Beiersdorf Australia Limited Logistics Division 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 Beiersdorf 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.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 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 March 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Beiersdorf Australia Limited T/A Beiersdorf Australia Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Beiersdorf Australia Limited Logistics Division Enterprise Agreement 2016. The matter was heard by Deputy President Jones and was concerned with the procedural fairness of the agreement and the absence of employee representatives during the negotiations. The applicant submitted that the enterprise agreement was made following a process that was fair and that the absence of employee representatives did not affect the validity of the agreement. The applicant argued that the representatives who were present had the authority to negotiate and that the employees had an opportunity to be heard.

The legal issues before the court were whether the enterprise agreement was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the absence of employee representatives during the negotiations rendered the agreement invalid. The court considered the evidence presented by the parties and the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the agreement was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the absence of employee representatives during the negotiations did not affect the validity of the agreement. The court held that the representatives who were present had the authority to negotiate and that the employees had an opportunity to be heard.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by the parties and the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the agreement was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the absence of employee representatives during the negotiations did not affect the validity of the agreement. The court held that the representatives who were present had the authority to negotiate and that the employees had an opportunity to be heard. The court also noted that the employees had an opportunity to make submissions to the applicant and that the applicant had considered those submissions in making the agreement.

The final orders of the court were that the Beiersdorf Australia Limited Logistics Division Enterprise Agreement 2016 be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also ordered that the agreement be registered by the Registrar of the Fair Work Commission. The court further ordered that the applicant provide a copy of the agreement to the Fair Work Ombudsman and to the relevant employee representatives.

Beiersdorf Australia Limited T/A Beiersdorf Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established