DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Consortio Pty Ltd
(AG2015/4881)

CONSORTIO PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Consortio Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise Agreement known as the Consortio Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Consortio Pty Ltd.

[2] This is a greenfields Agreement that meets the requirements of s.172(2)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that The Australian Workers’ Union is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) I note the Agreement was made with The Australian Workers’ Union and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from
14 September 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 7 March 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Consortio Pty Ltd applied for approval of the Consortio Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015. The applicant and the Australian Workers’ Union were parties to a previous enterprise agreement, which had expired. The union sought to negotiate a new agreement, and the applicant opposed the union’s claim that it was an appropriate bargaining agent. The union argued that it was appropriate, and that the applicant was obliged to negotiate with it. The union further argued that the applicant’s bargaining conduct had been unreasonable. The applicant, for its part, submitted that the union’s claim to be an appropriate bargaining agent was not made in good faith and that it was not an appropriate bargaining agent. The applicant further submitted that the union had unreasonably delayed negotiations and that it had failed to make a genuine attempt to reach agreement. The central issue for the Commission was whether the union was an appropriate bargaining agent. The Commission held that the union was an appropriate bargaining agent. The Commission found that the applicant’s refusal to recognise the union was not made in good faith, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that it had reasonable grounds to doubt the union’s representative capacity. The Commission held that the union’s claim was made in good faith and that the applicant had unreasonably refused to recognise the union as an appropriate bargaining agent. The application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

Consortio Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established