DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

BNE Property Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Spring Hill
(AG2017/797)

BNE PROPERTY PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Real estate industry
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC	MELBOURNE, 18 APRIL 2017

Application for approval of the BNE Property Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the BNE Property Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by BNE Property Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Spring Hill. 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] 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.

[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 18 April 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 April 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 April 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

BNE Property Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Spring Hill applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the BNE Property Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was made by the employer, BNE Property, seeking to have the proposed enterprise agreement (EA) approved as a registered EA under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was opposed by the Australian Services Union Queensland Branch (ASU) on the basis that the EA did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the EA complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

The Commission examined whether the EA was made in accordance with the procedural requirements, including whether the employer had taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that employees were aware of the proposed agreement and had an opportunity to discuss it. The Commission also considered whether the EA complied with the substantive requirements, including whether it provided for terms and conditions of employment that were no less favourable than the relevant award or safety net award. The Commission had to determine whether the EA met the good faith bargaining requirement and whether it provided for appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of disputes.

The Fair Work Commission found that the EA did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act as the employer had not taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that employees were aware of the proposed agreement and had an opportunity to discuss it. The Commission found that the EA did not meet the good faith bargaining requirement as the employer had not provided the ASU with sufficient information to enable meaningful discussion and negotiation. The Commission also found that the EA did not provide for appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the EA.

The Fair Work Commission refused to approve the BNE Property Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017 on the basis that it did not comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the employer had not taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that employees were aware of the proposed agreement and had an opportunity to discuss it. The Commission also found that the EA did not meet the good faith bargaining requirement and did not provide for appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. The employer was required to take further steps to ensure that the EA complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act before it could be approved.

BNE Property Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Spring Hill

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established