Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd T/A Cheminova Summary

[2013] FWCA 1337

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd T/A Cheminova
(AG2013/5092)

CHEMINOVA (MFG) PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER CARGILL	SYDNEY, 6 MARCH 2013

Application for approval of the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd trading as Cheminova. 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] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the National Union of Workers (NUW), each being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have 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 each organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 March 2013. The nominal expiry date is 7 September 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, trading as Cheminova, applied for approval of an enterprise agreement made with its employees. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of the procedural fairness and substantive fairness of the agreement.

The central legal issue was whether the agreement was made in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Cheminova had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that employees were properly informed and had an opportunity to discuss the terms of the proposed agreement. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, taking into account the relevant factors under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that Cheminova had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure procedural fairness. The employees had not been adequately informed about the proposed changes, nor had they been given a reasonable opportunity to discuss the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission determined that certain terms of the agreement were not fair and reasonable, particularly those that related to the reduction of certain benefits. Based on these findings, the Commission refused to approve the enterprise agreement. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the agreement remained unapproved.

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd T/A Cheminova

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established