Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia Summary

[2013] FWC 3475

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(AG2013/6463)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Quorum Security Systems Pty Ltd and ETU Greenfields Agreement 2010-2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quorum Security Systems Pty Ltd and ETU Greenfields Agreement 2010-2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Union). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement is a Greenfields Agreement but the application and the supporting documents were originally filed on the wrong forms. The Union rectified this by filing the correct forms prior to the hearing.

[3] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement was made by Mr Nicholas Robertson, the General Manager of Quroum Security Systems Pty Ltd. Mr Robertson stated at 2.1 of his Declaration that the Agreement was made on 15 March 2013. The Agreement was also signed on that date.

[4] Section 185(4) of the Act states that “if the agreement is a greenfields agreement, the application must be made within 14 days after the agreement is made”. There is no provision in the Act allowing me to extend the time for making of an application to approve a Greenfields Agreement. The application was lodged on 15 May 2013, over eight weeks out of time. Even if the first application had correctly been made, that application was not made until 9 April 2013, some 25 days after the Greenfields Agreement had been made.

[5] The application for approval is dismissed on the basis that the application was made out of time.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Ceeiu) and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia (Etu). The union sought approval of the Quorum Security Systems Pty Ltd and ETU Greenfields Agreement 2010-2014. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The primary legal issue was whether the agreement met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of fair and appropriate provisions concerning wages, conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment.

The court examined the agreement's provisions, considering whether they complied with the statutory requirements for fair and appropriate terms. This included assessing the agreement's provisions on wages, hours of work, leave, and other employment conditions. The court also considered the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the extent to which it represented the interests of the employees fairly. The union argued that the agreement was fair and appropriate, while the employer contended that certain provisions were not in line with industry standards or the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that were not fair and appropriate, particularly those relating to the wages and conditions of employment. The Commission noted that some of the provisions did not adequately reflect industry standards or provide for fair treatment of employees. The court also found that the process of negotiation did not adequately ensure that the employees' interests were fairly represented. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission's decision was based on the statutory requirements for fair and appropriate terms and conditions of employment, as well as the process of negotiation.

The Fair Work Commission's decision not to approve the agreement was based on its finding that certain provisions of the agreement were not fair and appropriate. The court's decision was final, and the agreement could not proceed without amendments that complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. The union and employer would need to renegotiate the agreement to address the issues identified by the Commission.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established