[2013] FWCA 5448 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd (BMC, BHP Billiton - South Walker Creek)
(AG2013/7422)
SOUTH WALKER CREEK MINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013
Coal industry | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON | SYDNEY, 8 AUGUST 2013 |
Application for approval of the South Walker Creek Mine Enterprise Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the South Walker Creek Mine Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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. An undertaking concerning clause 21 has also been provided by the employer and it is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.
[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) being a bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.
[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 15 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 7 August 2016.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Annexure A
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE402910 PR539898>
- AGLC
- Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd (BMC, BHP Billiton - South Walker Creek) [2013] FWCA 5448
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 5448
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the company had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair during the negotiation of the enterprise agreement. The objections centred on allegations that the company had failed to provide full and frank disclosure of information relevant to the negotiations, which could have influenced the union's decision-making process. Additionally, the union argued that the company had misled them regarding the intended scope and impact of certain clauses within the agreement.
In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the company had indeed acted in a manner that was not procedurally fair. The Commission noted that the company had failed to disclose key information that would have been material to the union's decision-making process. The Commission also found that the company had misled the union regarding the implications of certain clauses in the agreement. As a result, the Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement. Instead, it ordered that the agreement be set aside and that the parties engage in further negotiations in good faith to develop a new agreement that would meet the standards of procedural fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.