Boom Logistics Limited

[2023] FWCA 2191

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Boom Logistics Limited

(AG2023/2073)

BOOM LOGISTICS LTD TELFER MINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023

Mining industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’KEEFFE	PERTH, 24 JULY 2023

Application for approval of the Boom Logistics Ltd Telfer Mine Enterprise Agreement 2023

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Boom Logistics Ltd Telfer Mine Enterprise Agreement 2023 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Boom Logistics Limited (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Applicant has provided written undertakings. 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.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 24 July 2026.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boom Logistics Limited applied for approval of the Telfer Mine Enterprise Agreement 2023. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made by the company, Boom Logistics, while the respondent was the union representing the employees, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The union opposed the application, arguing that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Act.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the agreement provided for the compulsory resolution of all genuine workplace disputes, whether it contained the required minimum terms and conditions, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining provisions of the Act. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately provide for the resolution of genuine workplace disputes, and that it failed to include certain minimum terms and conditions, such as provisions for shift patterns and annual leave. The union also argued that the agreement did not reflect the outcome of good faith bargaining, as the union had not been given adequate opportunity to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did provide for the compulsory resolution of all genuine workplace disputes, and that it contained the required minimum terms and conditions. The Commission noted that the agreement included provisions for shift patterns and annual leave, and that these provisions were consistent with industry standards. The Commission also found that the agreement reflected the outcome of good faith bargaining, as the union had been given an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the agreement and had made submissions on the proposed agreement. The Commission approved the agreement, finding that it met the requirements of the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established