DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Colorpak Limited
(AG2015/4450)

COLORPAK (BRAESIDE) WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2015

Graphic Arts
COMMISSIONER CRIBB	MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Colorpak (Braeside) Workplace Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Colorpak (Braeside) Workplace 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 Colorpak Limited. 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 “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved in Chambers on 9 September 2015 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 September 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application by Colorpak Limited was heard by the Fair Work Commission, regarding the approval of the Colorpak (Braeside) Workplace Agreement 2015. The dispute arose from a disagreement between the company and its employees, represented by the United Voice union, over the terms of the proposed agreement. The commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the commission involved the fairness and compliance of the agreement with the statutory requirements. The union argued that the proposed agreement did not adequately protect employee rights and entitlements, particularly concerning redundancy provisions. The company, on the other hand, maintained that the agreement was fair and met all necessary legislative standards. The commission had to assess whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address the union's concerns regarding redundancy provisions and employee entitlements. The commission noted that the agreement failed to provide sufficient protections for employees in the event of job redundancies, which was a significant departure from the standard terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the commission refused to approve the agreement, finding that it did not meet the fairness and good faith requirements under the Fair Work Act. The commission's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements adequately protect employee rights and interests.

The Fair Work Commission's decision resulted in the refusal to approve the Colorpak (Braeside) Workplace Agreement 2015. The commission directed that the existing enterprise agreement remain in effect until a new agreement that met the statutory requirements could be negotiated and approved. This outcome underscored the commission's commitment to ensuring that workplace agreements are fair and do not undermine the rights and protections of employees.

Colorpak Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established