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

[2013] FWCA 3114

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
(AG2013/6305)

HEALEY INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD & ETU POWERLINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2013

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 16 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Healey Infrastructure Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Healey Infrastructure Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013 (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. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, 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 this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 May 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2013.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the dispute were the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and Healey Infrastructure Pty Ltd and ETU Powerline Enterprise (the Employers). The Union sought approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013 from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). The Employers opposed the approval of the agreement on the basis that it contained provisions that were not reasonably appropriate for a fair and efficient workplace.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the provisions of the agreement were reasonably appropriate in a fair and efficient workplace, whether the agreement provided for a proper balance between the interests of the employees and the Employers, and whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission had to consider the Fair Work Act 2009 and relevant case law to determine whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval.

The Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that were not reasonably appropriate for a fair and efficient workplace. The provisions relating to the classification of employees, the calculation of overtime, and the use of labour hire workers were not reasonably appropriate. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for a proper balance between the interests of the employees and the Employers. The agreement did not provide for adequate consultation and communication between the parties, and the dispute resolution procedures were not effective. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission did not approve the Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013. The Union and the Employers were ordered to negotiate a new agreement that met the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission emphasised the importance of a fair and efficient workplace and the need for a proper balance between the interests of the employees and the Employers. The decision provides guidance for parties negotiating enterprise agreements and highlights the importance of consultation and effective dispute resolution procedures.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established