C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Cleveland Compressed Air

[2014] FWCA 6108

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Cleveland Compressed Air
(AG2014/1966)

C. O’CONNOR HOLDINGS PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Cleveland Compressed Air. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

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

[3] 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.

[4] I am satisfied that The Australian Workers’ Union, the employee organisation to be covered by the agreement, is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 3 September 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 10 September 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 March 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were C.O’Connor Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Cleveland Compressed Air, and the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The dispute arose from an application for the approval of the Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014, which was to be submitted to the Fair Work Commission. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the proposed agreement met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the agreement was made in good faith and if it provided for fair terms and conditions of employment.

The court examined whether the negotiation process leading to the agreement was genuine and if the agreement itself was fair and reasonable. It also considered if the agreement provided for adequate protections for employees, including provisions for wages, working hours, and other employment conditions. The AWU argued that certain clauses in the agreement were unfair and did not reflect good faith bargaining. The court had to weigh these arguments against the company’s position that the agreement was fair and beneficial for both parties.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 met the necessary criteria for approval. The court found that the agreement was made in good faith and provided for fair terms and conditions of employment. The provisions in the agreement were deemed to be reasonable and did not unfairly disadvantage the employees. As a result, the court approved the agreement, confirming its compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision allows the agreement to be registered and enforced as a registered agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established