| [2019] FWCA 2983 |
| 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 T/A Electrical Trades Union of Australia
(AG2019/1265)
BOOOSST ELECTRICAL, DATA & SECURITY PTY LTD AND ETU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018-2021
Electrical contracting industry | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 2 MAY 2019 |
Application for approval of the Booosst Electrical, Data & Security Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Booosst Electrical, Data & Security Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia T/A Electrical Trades Union of Australia. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[5] I observe that the following provisions is likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):
• Clause 20 - Termination of Employment.
However, noting clause 4 of the Agreement, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.
[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 9 May 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2021.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE503202 PR707874>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia T/A Electrical Trades Union of Australia [2019] FWCA 2983
- Case
- [2019] FWCA 2983
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue for the Commission to determine was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it met the "better-off, worse-off" and "no disbenefit" tests. The "better-off, worse-off" test requires that the agreement must not make employees worse off than they would have been under the applicable award or registered agreement. The "no disbenefit" test requires that the agreement must not result in a reduction in the terms and conditions of employment for any employee.
The Commission found that the agreement met the "better-off, worse-off" test but did not meet the "no disbenefit" test. The Commission held that while the agreement provided for some improvements to employees' terms and conditions, it also resulted in a reduction in the terms and conditions of employment for some employees. The Commission found that the reduction in the terms and conditions of employment was not justified by any countervailing benefits and therefore the agreement did not meet the "no disbenefit" test. The Commission refused to approve the agreement.
The Fair Work Commission refused to approve the Boost Electrical, Data & Security Pty Ltd and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021. The Commission found that while the agreement provided for some improvements to employees' terms and conditions, it also resulted in a reduction in the terms and conditions of employment for some employees. The Commission held that the reduction in the terms and conditions of employment was not justified by any countervailing benefits and therefore the agreement did not meet the "no disbenefit" test.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.