Bradken Resources Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 4869

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Bradken Resources Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6807)

BRADKEN RESOURCES PTY LTD MACKAY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Bradken Resources Pty Ltd Mackay Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bradken Resources Pty Ltd Mackay Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Bradken Resources Pty Ltd. 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] The Australian Workers’ Union 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), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 5 June 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradken Resources Pty Ltd applied for approval of the Mackay Enterprise Agreement 2014 in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Bradken Resources argued that the agreement was fair and appropriate, while the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) raised objections, contending that certain provisions did not comply with the statutory requirements.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the agreement satisfied the criteria for approval under section 233 of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the agreement contained the required minimum terms and conditions, and whether it had been made free from improper conduct. The CFMEU argued that certain provisions in the agreement did not meet these requirements, particularly concerning the classification and pay rates for certain employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not include all the required minimum terms and conditions, particularly regarding the classification and pay rates for certain employees. The Commission also found that the agreement had been made free from improper conduct. However, the failure to include the required minimum terms meant that the agreement could not be approved under section 233 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission therefore did not grant approval of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements contain all the required minimum terms and conditions. The court's reasoning emphasises that any omission can lead to the agreement not being approved, regardless of other factors. The final orders of the Commission were that the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established