DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd T/A Cheminova
(AG2016/5956)

CHEMINOVA (MFG) PTY LTD, WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FMC CORPORATION, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 18 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, wholly owned subsidiary of FMC Corporation, Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[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 2015 (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 T/A Cheminova. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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 and “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) and based on the statutory declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 18 November 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of FMC Corporation, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of its 2015 Enterprise Agreement. The applicant, Cheminova, and the respondents, the Chemical Workers Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, had engaged in negotiations leading to the agreement. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, taking into account the national employment standards and the role of unions in the process.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, if it covered all relevant employees, and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms. It also needed to assess whether the agreement was consistent with the national employment standards and if the bargaining process was free from coercion or undue influence. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the role and participation of unions in the negotiation process, ensuring that it was meaningful and not merely tokenistic.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, covered all relevant employees, and provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The agreement was consistent with the national employment standards, and the bargaining process was free from coercion or undue influence. The court acknowledged the meaningful role of unions in the negotiation process, despite some concerns raised by the respondents regarding the extent of their involvement. Consequently, the Commission approved the 2015 Enterprise Agreement, finding it met the statutory requirements for approval.

The Fair Work Commission approved Cheminova’s 2015 Enterprise Agreement, confirming that it satisfied the criteria under the Fair Work Act. The agreement was found to be genuinely negotiated, covering all relevant employees and providing for fair and reasonable terms. The Commission also determined that the agreement was consistent with the national employment standards and that the bargaining process was free from coercion or undue influence. The meaningful role of unions in the negotiation process was acknowledged, despite some concerns regarding their involvement.

Cheminova (MFG) Pty Ltd T/A Cheminova

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established