DECISION

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

Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10522)

BYTECRAFT SYSTEMS EMPLOYEE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - QUEENSLAND

Business equipment industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the Bytecraft Systems Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - Queensland.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bytecraft Systems Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - Queensland (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd. It is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The consultation term in sub clause 4.4 of the proposed Agreement does not contain all of the provisions required by the Act. Therefore, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

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

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers both organisations.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 5 March 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 12 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 10 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd, an employer, and the Australian Services Union, a union, sought the Fair Work Commission's approval of the Bytecraft Systems Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute centred on the union's objection to the proposed enterprise agreement, specifically concerning the classification of employees and their entitlements. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an industrial relations tribunal with jurisdiction over employment disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to the classification of employees and their entitlements. The union argued that the classification of employees under the proposed agreement did not accurately reflect their roles and responsibilities, thereby depriving them of certain entitlements. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the proposed classification was fair and reasonable and that the agreement met all legal requirements.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act. The classification of employees under the agreement did not accurately reflect their roles and responsibilities, and as a result, certain employees were deprived of their entitlements. The Commission also found that the agreement failed to adequately address the union's concerns about the classification of employees. As a result, the Commission did not approve the proposed enterprise agreement.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission rejected the proposed Bytecraft Systems Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 due to its failure to accurately classify employees and provide them with their rightful entitlements. The Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with the Fair Work Act and that they accurately reflect the roles and responsibilities of employees. The employer and the union will need to revisit the agreement to address the Commission's concerns and reach a resolution that meets all legal requirements.

Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established