BOC Limited

[2014] FWCA 2202

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

BOC Limited
(AG2014/442)

BOC LIMITED (CES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 4 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the BOC Limited (CES) Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the BOC Limited (CES) Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by BOC Limited. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Australian Workers’ Union, and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, both being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 11 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 November 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BOC Limited was the applicant seeking approval of the BOC Limited (CES) Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal standards required for approval. The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights.

The Commission examined whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated between the employer and the employee representatives and whether it provided adequate protection for the employees. The applicant argued that the agreement was the product of good faith negotiations and that it contained provisions that were fair and reasonable. However, concerns were raised regarding the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the extent to which employee representatives had the opportunity to participate fully in the negotiation process.

After considering the evidence presented, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the procedural fairness requirements under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that there were significant procedural flaws in the negotiation process, which undermined the integrity of the agreement. As a result, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not provide the necessary protections for employees and could not be approved in its current form. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are negotiated fairly and in compliance with legal standards.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established