DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd T/A Kalassay Kalgoorlie
(AG2016/7398)

BUREAU VERITAS MINERALS PTY LTD TRADING AS KALASSAY - KALGOORLIE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017.

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 8 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd trading as Kalassay - Kalgoorlie Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd trading as Kalassay – Kalgoorlie Enterprise Agreement 2017 (“the Agreement”). The application is made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) by Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd T/A Kalassay Kalgoorlie (“Kalassay Kalgoorlie”). It is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] After reviewing the application and the F17 Employer’s Statutory Declaration, together with the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Agreement, the Commission sought clarification about various matters. One issue, in particular, concerned the arrangements to apply to those employees who are working the roster referred to in sub clause 9.2 of the Agreement and set out in Schedule C.

[3] The application was subsequently set down for hearing to enable further submissions to be provided in regard to these arrangements. The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (“the AMWU”), who were a Union Bargaining Representative for the Agreement, were also notified of this hearing date and time but elected not to participate.

[4] Kalassay Kalgoorlie indicated in its submissions that the employees involved in working the Schedule C roster work a roster that involves four days of day shift, followed by four days on afternoon shift, followed by four days off work. The employees work through this roster cycle over all seven days in the week, and the roster pattern accordingly repeats at the conclusion of every seven weeks. During that seven week roster cycle an employee would typically not be required to work on a weekend in two weeks of the cycle. In another two weeks they would be required to work on one weekend day only, and in the remaining weeks of the cycle there would be two weekend days involved.

[5] In summary, this would involve twenty week days being worked in each seven week cycle of the roster and eight weekend days. A 15% penalty applies to all of these hours. In addition, that penalty rate is being applied to wage rates that are between 6% and 22% higher than those contained in the underlying Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010. I am satisfied, in conclusion, that the employees can be said to be “better off overall” under these arrangements over the period of the seven week roster cycle, compared to the arrangements that would otherwise apply under the terms and conditions contained in the underlying Modern Award.

[6] It is also noted that employees who are not involved in working this roster cycle, and are only involved in ordinary time work on Monday – Friday, receive the normal penalty rate entitlements that apply under the Modern Award for work performed at other times.

[7] Kalassay Kalgoorlie has also provided written undertakings to confirm what is intended to apply. A copy of those undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that they will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are accordingly accepted and will now be taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[8] I am otherwise satisfied that each of the requirements contained in ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[9] The Western Australian branch of the AMWU, who were 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[10] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 15 September 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 December 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

N McAllister with W Turner, R Campbell and G Phillips for the Applicant.

Hearing details:

2017.

Melbourne and Perth (by telephone):

September 6.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

In the case of Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd T/A Kalassay Kalgoorlie, the applicant, an enterprise agreement was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for approval. The agreement, which was the result of negotiations between the applicant and its employees, sought to regulate various terms and conditions of employment, including wages, hours of work, and other workplace matters. The dispute arose when some employees raised concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the agreement. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards and provided for the fair resolution of workplace issues.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it appropriately dealt with the terms and conditions of employment, and whether it met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided for appropriate processes for resolving workplace disputes and whether it was made without any improper conduct. The Commission also needed to assess whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and the employer.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions presented by both the applicant and the objectors, the Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith and dealt with the terms and conditions of employment appropriately. The agreement was also found to meet the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The Commission determined that the agreement provided for adequate processes for resolving workplace disputes and that it was made without any improper conduct. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the agreement was in the best interests of both the employees and the employer. As a result, the Commission approved the Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd trading as Kalassay - Kalgoorlie Enterprise Agreement 2017.

Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd T/A Kalassay Kalgoorlie

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established