Boom Logistics Ltd

Case [2022] FWCA 2019


[2022] FWCA 2019

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Boom Logistics Ltd

(AG2022/1745)

Boom Logistics Ltd Olympic Dam Enterprise Agreement 2022

Mining industry

COMMISSIONER PLATT

ADELAIDE, 23 JUNE 2022

Application for approval of the Boom Logistics Ltd Olympic Dam Enterprise Agreement 2022

  1. An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Boom Logistics Ltd Olympic Dam Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Boom Logistics Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

  1. The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 9 June 2022.

  1. On 16 June 2022, I conducted a telephone conference with the parties to seek clarification about aspects of the Agreement and invited the Applicant to address these matters including through the provision of an undertaking.

  1. The Applicant has submitted an undertaking in the required form dated 16 June 2022. The undertaking deals with the following topics:

·   The Applicant has inserted a National Employment Standards (NES) precedence clause.

·   An employee who takes personal/carer’s leave must notify his/her direct supervisor of his/her inability to report for duty as soon as practicable (which may be a time after the leave has started).

·   Clause 19.8 of the Agreement, which allows for withholding of money on termination, will not apply in relation to any payments owing to the employee under the NES (e.g. annual leave).

·   Clause 19.13 of the Agreement, which deals with abandonment, will operate subject to any requirement under the NES to provide notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice.

·   Employees engaged as trainees will be paid the applicable trainee rates of pay under the Mobile Crane Hiring Award 2020 (the Award), plus an additional 5.0%.

·   The Applicant has provided a system consistent with that in Shop, Distributive and Allied Association v Beechworth Bakery Employee Co Pty Ltd T/A Beechworth Bakery[1] for employees covered by the Award.

  1. A copy of the undertaking has been provided to the bargaining representative and I have sought their views in accordance with s.190(4) of the Act. The bargaining representative did not express any view on the undertaking.

  1. The undertaking appears to meet the requirements of s.190(3) of the Act and I have accepted it. As a result, the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

  1. Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU), 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

  1. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

  1. The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 days after the date of approval of the Agreement. The nominal expiry date is 22 June 2025.

COMMISSIONER


[1] [2017] FWCFB 1664

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE516341  PR742826>

Details
AGLC
Boom Logistics Ltd [2022] FWCA 2019
Case
[2022] FWCA 2019
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boom Logistics Ltd applied for the Fair Work Commission to approve the 2022 Olympic Dam Enterprise Agreement. The respondent, Fair Work Ombudsman, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not provide for the minimum entitlements for full-time and part-time employees as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was required to determine whether the agreement provided for the minimum terms and conditions and whether it was fair and reasonable.

The court held that the agreement did not provide for the minimum terms and conditions required by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the agreement did not provide for the minimum rate of pay for full-time and part-time employees and did not provide for the minimum entitlements for shift work and overtime. The court found that the agreement was not fair and reasonable as it did not provide for the minimum terms and conditions required by the Fair Work Act. The court refused to approve the agreement. The court found that the agreement did not provide for the minimum terms and conditions required by the Fair Work Act and was not fair and reasonable. The court refused to approve the agreement. The Fair Work Ombudsman's application for costs was dismissed.

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.