DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Chem-Supply Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1586)

CHEM-SUPPLY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 19 JANUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Chem-Supply Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Chem-Supply Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Chem-Supply Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act 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 National Union of Workers has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with Section 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. The reason for the delay was provided with the application and related to the Christmas break.

[5] Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, in all the circumstances, I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 January 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chem-Supply Pty Ltd, an employer, applied for approval of the Chem-Supply Enterprise Agreement 2014 with the Fair Work Commission. The application was opposed by the Transport Workers Union, an employee representative, on the basis that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' entitlements in certain circumstances. The matter was heard and determined by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement provided appropriate safeguards for employees' entitlements in light of the union's concerns. Specifically, the union argued that the agreement did not sufficiently protect employees' entitlements in situations where their hours were varied or reduced, and where they were required to work in a different capacity than that for which they were originally engaged. The employer contended that the agreement contained appropriate protections and that the union's concerns were unfounded.

In determining the matter, the Full Bench of the Commission considered the provisions of the agreement and the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission found that, while the agreement contained some protections for employees' entitlements, it did not adequately address the union's concerns in certain circumstances. In particular, the Commission found that the agreement did not provide sufficient protections for employees' entitlements where their hours were varied or reduced, and where they were required to work in a different capacity than that for which they were originally engaged. Accordingly, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission refused to approve the Chem-Supply Enterprise Agreement 2014. The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' entitlements in certain circumstances, and that the union's concerns were well-founded. The Commission directed the parties to negotiate a revised agreement that addressed these concerns, and to seek to reach agreement as soon as possible.

Chem-Supply 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