DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2017/3107)

CARTER HOLT HARVEY MORWELL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 2 AUGUST 2017

Application for variation of the Carter Holt Harvey Morwell Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made to vary the Carter Holt Harvey Morwell Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made by Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The variation relates to inserting into the Agreement a new Schedule D related to arrangements for the closure of the Morwell sawmill. A copy of the signed variation is attached at Appendix A.

[3] I am satisfied that the requirements of section 211(1)(a) and (b) of the Act have been met. Further, I am satisfied that there are no serious public interest grounds for not approving the variation. The variation was approved by a valid majority of the employees on 24 July 2017.

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the employee organisations party to the Agreement, have each filed a Form F23B in support of the application.

[5] The Agreement as varied meets the relevant requirements in s.186 of the Act.

[6] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[7] Pursuant to s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 2 August 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, sought to vary the Carter Holt Harvey Morwell Enterprise Agreement 2016 in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on changes to employee rostering, shift patterns, and the introduction of a four-day workweek. The respondent, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes would disadvantage employees and alter the existing enterprise agreement in an unfavourable manner.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes were genuinely aimed at improving productivity and efficiency, whether the changes constituted an improvement to the employees' conditions, and if the application satisfied the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine whether the proposed changes were in the interests of the employees and if the application complied with the statutory framework for enterprise agreements.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed changes to the rostering and shift patterns, including the introduction of a four-day workweek, were indeed aimed at improving productivity and efficiency within the enterprise. The Commission considered the evidence presented by the applicant regarding the potential benefits of the proposed changes, such as increased operational flexibility and employee satisfaction. The Commission also took into account the views of the employees, as expressed through the consultation process. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the proposed changes were in the interests of the employees and constituted an improvement to their conditions, as they would result in increased flexibility and better work-life balance.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application for variation of the enterprise agreement, allowing the introduction of the proposed changes. The final orders included amendments to the rostering, shift patterns, and the implementation of a four-day workweek for eligible employees. The decision reflects the Commission's consideration of the evidence and the statutory requirements for varying an enterprise agreement.

Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia 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