Catalent Australia Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 8585

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Catalent Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/9847)

CATALENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Pharmaceutical industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 1 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Catalent Australia Pty Ltd Production Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

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

[3] The National Union of Workers being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 1 December 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 8 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Catalent Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Catalent Australia Pty Ltd Production Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The respondent, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, objected to the approval of certain clauses in the agreement, including provisions relating to employee classification, shift arrangements, and penalty rates. The matter was heard by the Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission considered whether the agreement was in the interests of the employees and whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The Commission found that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees, as it did not adequately protect their rights and entitlements. The Commission also found that certain provisions in the agreement, including those relating to employee classification and shift arrangements, were not fair and reasonable. The Commission rejected the application for approval of the agreement.

The Commission found that the agreement failed to adequately protect the employees' rights and entitlements, particularly in relation to employee classification and shift arrangements. The Commission noted that the agreement did not provide for a clear and consistent classification of employees, which could lead to confusion and uncertainty in the workplace. The Commission also found that the shift arrangements provided for in the agreement were not fair and reasonable, as they did not take into account the needs and preferences of the employees. The Commission rejected the application for approval of the agreement and made no orders for its approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established