DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bridgestone Australia Ltd t/a Bridgestone
(AG2020/3464)

BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD. VICTORIAN COMMERCIAL STORES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MANSINI	MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2020

Application for approval of the Bridgestone Australia Ltd. Victorian Commercial Stores Enterprise Agreement 2020.

[1] An application has been made by Bridgestone for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bridgestone Australia Ltd. Victorian Commercial Stores Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declaration, 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 United 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) and based on the declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 4 December 2020 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 11 December 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2023.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bridgestone Australia Ltd trading as Bridgestone, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether to approve the proposed Victorian Commercial Stores Enterprise Agreement 2020. The application for approval came from the company, while the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union contested the application. The primary dispute revolved around the terms of the proposed agreement, specifically whether it complied with the relevant legislative requirements and the principles of good faith bargaining.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated in good faith and if it adhered to the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements for good faith bargaining and contained terms that were detrimental to employees. The company maintained that the agreement was the result of genuine negotiations and provided fair and reasonable terms for both parties.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the standard of good faith bargaining. The company's conduct during the negotiation process was found to be lacking in genuine engagement with the Union. Additionally, certain provisions in the agreement were deemed to be unfair and not in line with the principles of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining and the need for compliance with legislative requirements in future negotiations between the parties.

Bridgestone Australia Ltd t/a Bridgestone

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established