DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd
(AG2017/5633)

CHEMINOVA (MFG) PTY LTD, WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FMC CORPORATION, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 7 DECEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, wholly owned subsidiary of FMC Corporation, Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, wholly owned subsidiary of FMC Corporation, Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Cheminova (MFG) 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 December 2017 The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2020

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of FMC Corporation, sought approval for their 2017 Enterprise Agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the fairness and validity of the agreement's terms, which were being contested by various employee groups. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval and whether it was fair and reasonable in the context of the enterprise.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved assessing the procedural fairness of the agreement, including the adequacy of consultation with employee representatives, and evaluating the substantive fairness of the agreement's terms. Key points of contention included the scope of the agreement, the classification of certain job roles, and the implications for employee entitlements and conditions. The Commission had to balance the rights and interests of the employer with those of the employees, ensuring that the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was procedurally sound, as Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd had engaged in genuine and meaningful consultation with employee representatives. The Commission also determined that the substantive terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, taking into account the specific circumstances of the enterprise. The agreement was approved, recognising the need for flexibility and efficiency in the operations of the company while safeguarding the rights and entitlements of the employees.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted approval for the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017, finding it to be both procedurally and substantively fair. The decision underscored the importance of balanced consultation and fair terms in enterprise agreements, reflecting the Commission's commitment to upholding the principles of the Fair Work Act.

Cheminova (MFG) 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