CHEP Pallecon Solutions Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 8162

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

CHEP Pallecon Solutions Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7983)

CHEP PALLECON SOLUTIONS DRY CREEK (SA) SERVICE CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 25 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the CHEP Pallecon Solutions Dry Creek (SA) Service Centre Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CHEP Pallecon Solutions Dry Creek (SA) Service Centre 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 CHEP Pallecon Solutions Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I was initially concerned with some aspects of the proposed Agreement and wrote to the company outlining those issues on 5 November 2014. On 11 November 2014 I received a signed undertaking in response to the queries from Andrew Heng, Human Resources Manager, Asia-Pacific. This undertaking now forms part of the Agreement and is kept on the file. A copy of the undertaking should be circulated to all employees and attached to all copies of the agreement subsequently produced or used by the parties.

[3] The undertaking which now forms part of the Agreement is attached.

[4] I am satisfied that the effect of the undertaking is not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement; or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Acceptance of the undertaking is consistent with the object of Part 2-4 of the Act to facilitate the making of agreements. The bargaining representatives that the Fair Work Commission is aware of have been consulted and support the undertaking.

[5] 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.

[6] As the agreement does not contain a consultation term that meets the requirements of s.205(1) and 205(1A) of the Act, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement.

[7] As the agreement does not contain a flexibility term that meets the requirements of the legislation, pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 2 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CHEP Pallecon Solutions Pty Ltd sought approval for the CHEP Pallecon Solutions Dry Creek (SA) Service Centre Enterprise Agreement 2014. The Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, which argued that the agreement failed to meet certain standards.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement contained all the required terms as per section 231 of the Fair Work Act, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining requirements under section 227. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

In addressing these issues, the Commission examined the negotiation process, the content of the agreement, and its impact on the employees. The Commission noted that while the agreement was the result of good faith negotiations, there were concerns regarding the clarity and fairness of certain provisions. However, the Commission found that the overall terms of the agreement were reasonable and in the best interests of the employees. The Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the identified concerns.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the enterprise agreement with specified modifications to ensure it met all legal requirements and provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The modifications primarily involved clarifying certain provisions to ensure they were not ambiguous and to protect employee rights effectively.

CHEP Pallecon Solutions Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established