Bewired Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 7542

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bewired Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7198)

BEWIRED PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 23 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Bewired Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bewired Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Bewired 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 was approved on 23 October 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 October 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bewired Pty Ltd, an employer, sought approval of its enterprise agreement with its employees, who were represented by a union. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the enterprise agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of its provisions on pay rates, penalty rates, and other conditions of employment. The union argued that certain clauses of the agreement were unfair and did not provide adequate protections for the employees.

The commission examined the agreement clause by clause, assessing its compliance with statutory requirements and principles of procedural and substantive fairness. It considered whether the agreement met the "better off overall test," which requires that employees be no worse off financially under the new agreement than they would be under the applicable award or previous agreement. The commission also looked at whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and whether it contained mandatory terms that were necessary for the protection of employees. After careful consideration, the commission found that the agreement largely complied with the relevant statutory provisions and was fair and reasonable.

As a result, the commission approved the enterprise agreement, subject to certain conditions. The employer was required to provide additional information to employees regarding specific terms and conditions, and to ensure that these were clearly communicated. The union and employer were also required to notify the commission of any subsequent changes to the agreement. The commission's decision provides a useful guide for employers and unions in negotiating and approving enterprise agreements, and highlights the importance of ensuring that agreements are fair and reasonable for all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established