| [2022] FWCA 3345 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd
(AG2022/3696)
Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2022 - 2026
| Road transport industry | |
| COMMISSIONER O'NEILL | MELBOURNE, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Application for approval of the Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2022 - 2026
Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd has applied for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2022 - 2026 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is a single enterprise agreement.
The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia 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.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 5 October 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 August 2026.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE517566 PR746258>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Cameron Interstate Pty Ltd [2022] FWCA 3345
- Case
- [2022] FWCA 3345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission examined whether the agreement provided employees with at least the minimum entitlements prescribed by the relevant awards and whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith. It also considered whether the proposed agreement complied with the procedural requirements, such as proper notice and consultation with the employees. The Commission also had to determine whether the agreement was likely to result in employees being better off overall compared to their current conditions, including both financial and non-financial benefits.
In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not adequately provide for certain minimum entitlements, specifically regarding overtime and penalty rates. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that there were procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process, including insufficient consultation with the employee representatives. Despite these findings, the Commission noted that the agreement included various benefits that could potentially be advantageous to the employees, such as additional leave provisions and professional development opportunities. However, these benefits were not deemed sufficient to offset the deficiencies in the agreement's compliance with statutory requirements.
The Fair Work Commission decided not to approve the proposed enterprise agreement. The Commission emphasised the importance of compliance with minimum entitlements and procedural fairness in the negotiation process. The Commission ordered that the agreement could not be certified and directed the parties to re-negotiate the agreement to address the identified deficiencies.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.