DECISION

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

Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd T/A Ixom
(AG2015/2939)

CHEMICALS AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS PTY LTD (CHLORALKALI BOTANY) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 22 JULY 2015

Application for approval of the Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd (Chloralkali Botany) Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd (Chloralkali Botany) Enterprise Agreement 2015 (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 ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] During the bargaining process leading up to the making of this Agreement, I conducted a number of hearings and conferences in respect of a number of applications:

● Section 229 bargaining order application by the Australian Workers’ Union (B2014/1366);

● Section 437 protected action ballot order application by the Australian Workers’ Union (B2014/1679);

● Section 418 application that industrial action stop by Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd (Ixom) (C2015/2605);

● Section 739 application to deal with a dispute by the Australian Workers’ Union (C2015/1591).

[4] I am therefore well acquainted with the background to the finalisation of the Agreement.

[5] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] In its F18 form, the AWU raised an issue concerning the status of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the parties, as part of the settlement of the enterprise bargaining dispute in June 2015.

[7] Accordingly, a hearing took place on 17 July 2015. After submissions and a private conference, it was agreed that I would make reference to the MOU in this decision and issue a Statement containing the MOU which will remain on the Commission’s file.

[8] In the interests of clarity, I make it clear that the MOU is not part of the Agreement, as approved by the Commission in this decision. The MOU was, however, an integral part of the total package settlement endorsed by the parties. Both Ixom and the AWU have affirmed their intention to be bound by it.

[9] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 29 July 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 29 July 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

A. Mansini with J. Borg and M. Caswell for the Applicant.

V. Falconer with P. Noack and A. Wayland for the AWU.

Hearing details:

2015

Sydney:

July 17.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd (T/A Ixom) sought approval of the Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd (Chloralkali Botany) Enterprise Agreement 2015 in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, a company involved in the production and processing of chemicals, had entered into an enterprise agreement with the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. The agreement sought approval for various terms and conditions, including pay rates, hours of work, and dispute resolution processes. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, who raised concerns about certain provisions of the agreement.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly concerning the process by which the agreement was made and its substantive fairness. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was genuinely negotiated, if it was made in good faith, and whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions. The Commission also needed to consider the implications of the agreement on the employees covered by it.

The Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and made in good faith. It concluded that the process followed in reaching the agreement was appropriate and that the terms and conditions were fair and reasonable. The Commission took into account the complexity of the industry, the bargaining positions of the parties, and the nature of the changes proposed by the agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement did not disadvantage employees and provided for adequate protections and benefits. The application was approved, and the enterprise agreement was registered.

Chemicals Australia Operations Pty Ltd T/A Ixom

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established