Bridgestone Australia Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4508

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(AG2013/6292)

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

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 9 JULY 2013

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

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (WA) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] I had some concerns regarding clause 14 in the Agreement. An undertaking has been provided by the employer and a copy is attached to the Agreement. I do not know of any person being a bargaining representative for the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is January 18 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Bridgestone Australia Ltd, a tyre manufacturer, and Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd., an automotive retailer. The dispute centred on the proposed Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (WA) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013, which Quality Tyre Sales sought to have approved by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The application for approval was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, where it was necessary to determine whether the agreement met the statutory requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees and whether it complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the agreement contained the minimum terms and conditions mandated by the Act, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. Bridgestone argued that the agreement did not adequately protect its employees and failed to meet the statutory requirements for good faith bargaining.

The court found that the agreement did not provide the minimum entitlements required by the Fair Work Act, including adequate notice periods and redundancy payments. The court also determined that the agreement was not made in good faith, as it did not reflect the outcome of genuine negotiations between the parties. Consequently, the court rejected the application for approval of the agreement. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with statutory requirements and are made in accordance with the principles of good faith bargaining.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the application for approval of the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (WA) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013. The court's decision emphasised the need for enterprise agreements to meet the minimum standards set by the Fair Work Act and to be the product of genuine negotiations between employers and employees. The outcome serves as a reminder to parties involved in enterprise bargaining to ensure their agreements comply with legal requirements and are made in good faith.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established