Bridgestone Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4789

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bridgestone Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7199)

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

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 18 JULY 2013

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

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (Victoria) 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 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 application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[4] 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.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 18 July 2013 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 January 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bridgestone Australia Pty Ltd was the subject of an application before the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Quality Tyre Sales Pty. Ltd. (Victoria) Single Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was brought by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, and Bridgestone opposed it, raising concerns about the terms of the proposed agreement.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, Bridgestone argued that certain provisions of the agreement were not bona fide attempts to facilitate the employees' ability to determine their terms and conditions of employment, and that they were inconsistent with the enterprise's need to be economically viable. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement was consistent with the National Employment Standards.

In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the provisions of the agreement in detail. It found that the agreement did, in fact, facilitate the employees' ability to determine their terms and conditions of employment, and that it was not inconsistent with the enterprise's need to be economically viable. The Commission also concluded that the agreement was consistent with the National Employment Standards. It therefore approved the agreement, rejecting Bridgestone's objections.

The Commission's decision was made on 15 May 2014, and Bridgestone was ordered to give effect to the approved agreement. The decision is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and that they are consistent with the needs of both employers and employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established