DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2874)

CARTER HOLT HARVEY WOOD PRODUCTS, SOUTH EAST, UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, 2015

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 6 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products, South East, Union Collective Agreement, 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products, South East, Union Collective Agreement, 2015 (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 Woodproducts Australia 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, 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 the organisations.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 6 May 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, sought approval for the Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products, South East, Union Collective Agreement, 2015. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable. The proceedings were held in the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant argued that the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, while the respondent contended that several provisions were unfair.

The legal issues that arose involved the interpretation and assessment of the fairness of the terms of the collective agreement. The court needed to determine whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the terms were fair and reasonable. Key provisions in dispute included those related to pay rates, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and shift patterns. The central question was whether these provisions met the standard of fairness under the legislation.

The Fair Work Commission found that most of the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, considering the evidence presented by both parties. However, certain provisions regarding penalty rates and leave entitlements were deemed unfair. The Commission concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the unfair provisions were necessary to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome. The Commission therefore declined to approve the agreement in its entirety but provided guidance on how the applicant could modify the provisions to meet the requirements of fairness under the Act.

The final orders of the Commission were that the agreement was not approved in its current form, but the applicant was directed to make the necessary amendments to the provisions relating to penalty rates and leave entitlements. The applicant was given a timeframe within which to submit the revised agreement for further consideration by the Commission. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all terms of a collective agreement are fair and reasonable, and highlights the Commission's role in overseeing the compliance of such agreements with the Fair Work Act.

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