Bis Industries

[2013] FWCA 8716

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Bis Industries
(AG2013/10871)

BIS INDUSTRIES LOGISTICS GOLDFIELDS MAINTENANCE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 7 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Bis Industries Logistics Goldfields Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bis Industries Logistics Goldfields Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Bis Industries. 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.

[3] My satisfaction as to s.186(2)(d) is subject to written undertaking provided in relation to concerns raised by me in respect of approval of the Agreement, which is attached to this Decision as Annexure A and to the Agreement, in accordance with s.191(1)(b) are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 14 November 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Bis Industries sought approval for the Bis Industries Logistics Goldfields Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment for the employees under this agreement, specifically focusing on the classification and pay rates of certain workers. The matter was heard by the Commission to determine whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it provided for the proper classification and remuneration of employees, and whether it met the standards of procedural fairness and compliance with the relevant legislative framework.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including submissions on the proper classification of workers and the process through which the agreement was negotiated. The company argued that the agreement was the result of genuine and good faith bargaining, while the employees' representative contended that certain classifications were incorrect and that the process was flawed. The Commission considered the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness, as well as the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act. It concluded that the agreement, while generally well-intentioned, did not adequately address the proper classification of certain employees and had procedural shortcomings.

After careful consideration, the Commission found that the agreement did not meet the standards required by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, it was not made in good faith as there were procedural irregularities in the bargaining process, and the classification of certain employees was incorrect. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission directed that the agreement be returned to the parties for further negotiation and resolution of the outstanding issues in accordance with the legal standards and principles applicable to enterprise agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established