Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 823

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/12811)

CARTER HOLT HARVEY WOODPRODUCTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED MYRTLEFORD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited Myrtleford Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited Myrtleford Enterprise Agreement 2013 (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 Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant).

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

[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the Applicant has given the undertaking annexed to this decision. In accordance with ss. 191(1) and 201(3) of the Act I note that the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

ANNEXURE A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd sought approval of the Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited Myrtleford Enterprise Agreement 2013 from the Fair Work Commission. The application was made under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union, and various employees. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment in the myrtleford operations, including wage rates, working hours, and redundancy provisions.

The legal issues before the commission included whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" under section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated as required by section 228. The union argued that the agreement did not meet the better off overall test and had not been genuinely negotiated, due to alleged procedural irregularities and inadequate consultation. The company maintained that the agreement was fair and had been negotiated in good faith.

The commission found that the agreement did meet the better off overall test, considering the improved wages and conditions offered to employees. The commission also found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated, despite some procedural issues, as there had been sufficient consultation and the employees had been given an opportunity to provide input. The commission held that the procedural issues did not undermine the overall fairness and negotiation process of the agreement. As a result, the commission approved the agreement.

The final order of the commission was that the Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited Myrtleford Enterprise Agreement 2013 be approved as a registered agreement under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union and employees were granted leave to appeal the decision within 21 days.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established