DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Berg Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6335)

BERG ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 17 JANUARY 2017

Application for approval of the Berg Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Berg Engineering 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 Berg Engineering 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] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 24 January 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Berg Engineering Pty Ltd was a party to an enterprise agreement with the Building Construction General On-Site Workers’ Union. The company applied for the Fair Work Commission to approve the Berg Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Union opposed the application, contending that the agreement was unfair. The matter was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement was fair.

The primary issue before the Court was whether the agreement contained terms that were unfair within the meaning of section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the agreement was unfair because it contained terms that were detrimental to employees. The Union contended that the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally determine an employee's classification, which could result in employees being paid less than the relevant award rate. The Union also argued that the agreement did not provide for adequate procedures for the resolution of disputes between employees and the company.

The Court held that the agreement was unfair because it contained terms that were detrimental to employees. The Court found that the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally determine an employee's classification, which could result in employees being paid less than the relevant award rate. The Court also found that the agreement did not provide for adequate procedures for the resolution of disputes between employees and the company. The Court held that these terms were contrary to the purpose of the Fair Work Act, which is to provide for a fair system of industrial relations. The Court further held that the agreement did not provide for adequate protections for employees in relation to their classification and dispute resolution.

The Fair Work Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission held that the agreement was unfair and did not provide for adequate protections for employees. The Commission ordered that the agreement be terminated and that the parties return to bargaining in good faith.

Berg Engineering 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