DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(AG2018/3399)

BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD. VICTORIAN WAREHOUSE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for approval of the Bridgestone Australia Ltd. Victorian Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bridgestone Australia Ltd. Victorian Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Bridgestone Australia Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. 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.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The National Union of Workers 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 December 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 January 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by Bridgestone Australia Ltd for the approval of the Bridgestone Australia Ltd. Victorian Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2018. Bridgestone sought approval under section 173 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was opposed by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU), who raised concerns about various provisions within the agreement, including those related to employee classification, working hours, and penalty rates. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the provisions of the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act and other relevant legislation.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement's provisions were in compliance with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act, and whether the agreement provided fair and appropriate protections for employees. The SDA and TWU argued that several provisions did not adequately protect employees' rights, particularly in relation to shift patterns, penalty rates, and the classification of employees. Bridgestone defended the agreement, asserting that it offered fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and was in line with the Act. The Commission needed to assess the balance between the parties' interests and ensure that the agreement met the statutory criteria for approval.

In its decision, the Commission thoroughly examined the provisions of the agreement and the submissions from both parties. The Commission found that while the agreement generally provided fair terms and conditions, certain clauses needed modification to better protect employees' interests. After considering the submissions and the evidence presented, the Commission made amendments to the agreement's provisions on shift patterns, penalty rates, and employee classification. The Commission concluded that, with the amendments, the agreement met the statutory requirements and provided fair and appropriate protections for employees. The Commission approved the agreement as amended, ensuring that the terms and conditions were fair and balanced, and complied with the Fair Work Act.

Bridgestone Australia Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established