DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels Pty Ltd
(AG2017/912)

CARTER HOLT HARVEY PINEPANELS LTD, TUMUT PANELS SITE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 19 APRIL 2017

Application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels Ltd, Tumut Panels Site Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels Ltd, Tumut Panels Site Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels 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] 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] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 April 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels Pty Ltd sought approval for their 2016 Tumut Panels Site Enterprise Agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement was a subject of contention as it contained provisions regarding the classification and remuneration of employees that differed from the prevailing industry standards. The dispute centred on whether these provisions were fair and reasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining if the agreement met the criteria for approval, specifically focusing on whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and whether it was free from coercive conduct.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, and if the agreement was made without any element of coercion. The Commission examined the classification and pay rates for employees, the procedural fairness in the negotiation process, and whether the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were not worse off than the applicable award or registered agreement. The Commission also assessed whether there had been any undue influence or pressure exerted on the employees to accept the agreement.

After careful consideration, the Commission found that the agreement did provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. It was noted that the agreement's terms were not worse off than the relevant award and that the negotiation process was conducted in a procedurally fair manner. The Commission determined that there was no evidence of coercion and that the agreement had been freely and fairly negotiated. Therefore, the application for approval was successful, and the agreement was approved as meeting the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels Pty Ltd 2016 Tumut Panels Site Enterprise Agreement. The Commission's decision was grounded on the finding that the agreement was fair and reasonable, provided for terms and conditions that did not disadvantage employees, and was not the result of any coercive conduct. The agreement was thus authorised for operation from the date of the Commission's decision.

Carter Holt Harvey Pinepanels 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