Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWC 8673


[2014] FWC 8673
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6980)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 3 DECEMBER 2014

Application for variation of the Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd & Australian Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] On 4 August 2014, an application was lodged by Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the variation of the Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd & Australian Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the Agreement).

[2] The application lodged contained only a Form F23 - Application for approval of variation of an enterprise agreement. On 5 August 2014, the Perth Registry of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) wrote to the Applicant advising that a number of documents required to be filed with the application were missing and requested that the Applicant file the missing documentation as soon as possible. On the same day the application was allocated to me.

[3] On 25 August 2014, my Chambers wrote to the Applicant requesting that they file the missing documentation by no later than 27 August 2014.

[4] On 26 August 2014, the Applicant wrote to my Chambers advising that they could still file the relevant documentation, but noted that 14 days had passed since the vote for the variation had taken place. On the same day my Chambers responded to the Applicant advising that they were still able to file the missing documentation.

[5] On 30 September 2014, my Chambers once again wrote to the Applicant requesting that they file the missing documentation by 7 October 2014.

[6] On 7 October 2014, the Applicant filed a Form F23A - Employer’s statutory declaration in support of the variation of an enterprise agreement (Employer’s Statutory Declaration), a notice of representational rights and a copy of the variation signed by the Applicant. The Applicant still did not provide a Form F23B - Statutory declaration of employee organisation in relation to variation of an enterprise agreement or a consolidated copy of the Agreement with the variations included.

[7] As The Australian Workers’ Union (the AWU) was named as a union bargaining representative covered by the Agreement my Chambers contacted them on 8 October 2014 in relation to the application. The AWU requested that a copy of the application and the Employer’s Statutory Declaration be provided to them.
[8] On 10 October 2014, the AWU provided a signed Form F23B - Statutory declaration of employee organisation in relation to variation of an enterprise agreement (the AWU’s Statutory Declaration) in support of the variation and a copy of the variation signed by both the Applicant and the AWU.

[9] On 13 October 2014, my Chambers wrote to the Applicant requesting that they provide a consolidated copy of the Agreement as varied. On 17 October 2014, the Applicant provided a copy of the Agreement with the variations included as an Appendix to the Agreement.

[10] On 20 October 2014, my Chambers wrote to the Applicant advising that I did not regard the document provided on 17 October 2014 as a consolidated copy of the Agreement. My Chambers requested that the Applicant provide a copy of the Agreement with each clause amended to reflect the variations. The Applicant was requested to provide this by 24 October 2014. As no response was received from the Applicant in relation to this request, I listed the matter for Conference by telephone on 10 November 2014.

[11] The Conference was adjourned on the basis that the Applicant would provide my Chambers with a consolidated copy of the Agreement by 17 November 2014.

[12] To date the Applicant has not complied with this request. Accordingly, I dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR558496>

Details
AGLC
Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 8673
Case
[2014] FWC 8673
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd (Blowflex) sought to vary the terms of the Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd and Australian Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) by Deputy President K. C. O’Brien. The dispute arose from Blowflex's desire to alter the enterprise agreement to better align its operations with market demands and cost-efficiency goals. The Australian Workers Union (the Union) opposed the application, asserting that the proposed changes would adversely affect the employees' working conditions and rights.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the proposed variations were consistent with the principles of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the FWC needed to determine whether the changes were in the interest of the employees, fairly negotiated, and adhered to the good faith bargaining process. The FWC also needed to consider if the variations would result in a detriment to the employees in terms of their employment conditions, wages, or other entitlements.

In deciding the matter, Deputy President K. C. O’Brien examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the proposed changes against the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act. The FWC found that the application to vary the enterprise agreement met the criteria for an appropriate variation. The changes were deemed to be in the interest of the employees, as they would allow Blowflex to remain competitive and financially viable. Furthermore, the Deputy President was satisfied that the variations were the result of a good faith bargaining process. Consequently, the FWC granted the application and authorised the variations to the enterprise agreement.

The FWC's final order was that the Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd and Australian Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 be varied as per the terms outlined in Blowflex's application. The variations included changes to working hours, overtime provisions, and certain contractual entitlements, which were intended to support Blowflex's operational needs while maintaining a fair balance for the employees.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.