Boral Resources (Country) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3519

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.602 - Application to correct obvious error(s) etc. in relation to FWC's decision

Boral Resources (Country) Pty Ltd
(B2014/800)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 2 JUNE 2014

Boral Cadia Valley Operations Concrete Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] I have received an application pursuant to section 602(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, in relation to the above mentioned agreement.

[2] Based on the evidence and undertakings that have been provided, along with the consent of the Union, I am satisfied that the Agreement that was lodged for approval was not the final or appropriate version.

[3] I hereby amend my decision of 12 February 2014 [2014] FWCA 1058 and insert the correct copy of the Agreement as per the attached order [PR551091].

COMMISSIONER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boral Resources (Country) Pty Ltd, trading as Boral Cadia Valley Operations, was involved in a legal dispute with various unions representing employees at the Cadia Valley mine in New South Wales. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the industrial relations tribunal with jurisdiction over such disputes. The unions alleged that the company had breached the Boral Cadia Valley Operations Concrete Enterprise Agreement 2013 by unilaterally implementing changes to employee conditions, including pay rates and working hours, without following the procedures outlined in the agreement.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the company had the right to unilaterally implement changes to the enterprise agreement and, if not, whether the actions amounted to an unlawful termination of employment contracts. The unions argued that the company's actions constituted an unfair labour practice, while Boral contended that the changes were necessary for operational efficiency and were within its rights under the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission examined the terms of the enterprise agreement, relevant industrial laws, and precedents set in similar cases. It found that the company did not have the unilateral right to change conditions of employment outside the procedures specified in the agreement. The commission also determined that the changes implemented by the company constituted an unlawful termination of the employees' contracts. Consequently, the commission ordered the company to reinstate the employees under the original terms of the enterprise agreement and to pay compensation for the unlawful termination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established