DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Catalent Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/8250)

CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS 2014-2017 ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Catalent Pharma Solutions 2014-2017 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Catalent Pharma Solutions 2014-2017 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Catalent Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] An undertaking has been given in relation to several clauses of the Agreement and these undertakings have become terms of the Agreement in accordance with s.191(1) of the Act and are appended at Appendix A.

[3] Subject to these undertakings, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 11 December 2014.The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Catalent Australia Pty Ltd was the subject of an application seeking approval of an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) for the period 2014-2017. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with regulating and approving EBAs under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute centred on the fairness and validity of the proposed agreement, with concerns raised by various stakeholders about certain terms and conditions within the EBA.

The legal issues before the Commission involved assessing whether the EBA complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act, including the "better off overall test" (BOOT). This test mandates that the terms and conditions of an EBA must not be worse off for employees compared to their existing awards or agreements, and should be at least equivalent. Furthermore, the Commission had to determine if the agreement adhered to procedural fairness and whether it included all necessary provisions as per the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence presented and found that the EBA satisfied the BOOT by ensuring employees were not disadvantaged relative to their previous conditions. It was also determined that the agreement met all statutory requirements and was procedurally sound. The Commission approved the EBA, recognising that it provided fair terms and conditions for the employees while complying with the legislative framework. Consequently, the application was successful, and the EBA was approved for the specified period.

Catalent 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