| [2024] FWCA 2458 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd T/A Bluescope
(AG2024/2121)
LYSAGHT EMU PLAINS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024
| Manufacturing and associated industries | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT | SYDNEY, 2 JULY 2024 |
Application for approval of the Lysaght Emu Plains Enterprise Agreement 2024
Introduction
Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd T/A Bluescope (the Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Lysaght Emu Plains Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR)
The NERR titles the agreement as ‘Lysaght Emu Plains Enterprise Agreement 2021’ which is inconsistent with clause 1 of the agreement which titles the agreement as ‘Lysaght Emu Plains Enterprise Agreement 2024’. The Employer provided submissions that this matter constituted a minor technical error.
I am satisfied having regard to those submissions and the decision of the Full Bench in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others,[1] that this matter constituted a minor technical errors for the purpose of s.188(5)(a) of the Act, and that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error.
Public Holidays
Clause 17.6 of the Agreement states that where an employee is absent from work on the working day before or the working day after a public holiday without reasonable excuse or without consent on the employer, the employee is not entitled to payment for such working day. This appears to be contrary to an employee’s entitlement under s.116 of the Act to be absent from employment on a public holiday and be paid. I note that clause 25.2 of the Agreement provides that the National Employment Standards apply to employees covered by the Agreement provided that where the Agreement provides a more favourable condition, the Agreement prevails. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that clause 25.2 of the Agreement ensures compliance with s.116.
Section 190 Undertakings
The employer provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Schedule 2. 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. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
Section 186, 187, 188 and 190
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.
Section 183 Bargaining Representatives
The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it.
In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the AWU.
Approval
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 9 July 2024. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 July 2027.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] [2019] FWCFB 318.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE525283 PR776653>
- AGLC
- Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd T/A Bluescope [2024] FWCA 2458
- Case
- [2024] FWCA 2458
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the dispute resolution provisions in the enterprise agreement complied with section 230 of the Fair Work Act. This section mandates that an enterprise agreement must specify a method for resolving disputes regarding its interpretation or application. The applicant argued that the agreement contained a fair and efficient method for dispute resolution, whereas the employees contended that the provisions were insufficient and did not meet the legal requirements.
The Fair Work Commission found that the dispute resolution provisions in the enterprise agreement were not compliant with section 230 of the Fair Work Act. The court determined that the provisions were vague and did not provide a clear and effective method for resolving disputes. Consequently, the court refused to approve the enterprise agreement as it did not meet the legal requirements for dispute resolution. The court emphasised the importance of clear and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms in enterprise agreements to ensure fair treatment of both employers and employees.
As a result of the court's decision, the applicant was required to revise the dispute resolution provisions in the enterprise agreement to meet the legal requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The applicant had the opportunity to amend the agreement and resubmit it for approval by the Fair Work Commission.
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.