Bridgestone Australia Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4582

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(AG2013/7102)

QUALITY TYRE SALES PTY. LTD. (QUEENSLAND) SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Vehicle industry
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 10 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (Queensland) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known asthe Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (Queensland) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 (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 Applicant). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The National Union of Workers (the Union)has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 January 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bridgestone Australia Ltd, an appellant, sought approval of the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (Queensland) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 in the Fair Work Commission. Bridgestone, a tyre manufacturer, claimed that the proposed agreement was not appropriate for the employees of Quality Tyre Sales, an authorised tyre dealer. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement was suitable for the workers of the respondent business.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed agreement, which was negotiated between the employer and the employees' representative, was appropriate for the employees of Quality Tyre Sales. The agreement contained provisions that were not specifically tailored to the business operations of Quality Tyre Sales, which was a tyre dealer, as opposed to a tyre manufacturer. The court had to consider whether these provisions were acceptable under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission determined that the proposed agreement was not appropriate for the employees of Quality Tyre Sales. It found that the agreement contained provisions that were not specific to the business operations of Quality Tyre Sales, and therefore, did not adequately address the needs of the employees. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was not suitable for the employees of Quality Tyre Sales. 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