FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Teague Constructions Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1414)

TEAGUE CONSTRUCTIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 21 JULY 2015

Application for approval of the Teague Constructions Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Teague Constructions Enterprise 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 Teague Constructions Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] Undertakings have been provided in the following terms:

“No employee will be required to work more than 10 hours on any weekday.”

“Where an employee is transferred from one site to another during working hours and the employee uses their own car for such a transfer, the employee will be paid an allowance of $0.78 per kilometre after the first 20 kilometres.

Where an employee travels outside of a 50km radius from the Adelaide GPO, the time spent travelling beyond that radium and return, outside ordinary working hours, will be paid at the ordinary time hourly rate, calculated to the next quarter of an hour, with a minimum payment of one half an hour per day for each return journey. Where the employee uses their own vehicle, they will be paid $0.47 per kilometre after the first 30 kilometres.”

[3] As a result, the above undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. Copies of advice provided by the employer are attached to the Agreement as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, respectively.

[4] 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 July 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 20 July 2019.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of the Teague Constructions Enterprise Agreement 2015. The dispute involved the procedural fairness of the process by which Teague Constructions had entered into the agreement, specifically regarding the participation of the Union. The Fair Work Commission heard the application. The central legal issue was whether Teague Constructions had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair when negotiating and finalising the enterprise agreement. This involved scrutinising whether the Union had been given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the negotiation process and whether Teague Constructions had adequately considered the Union's submissions.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the timing and manner in which Teague Constructions had communicated with the Union, as well as the Union's claims of being excluded from critical stages of the negotiation process. The Commission found that Teague Constructions had indeed failed to provide the Union with a reasonable opportunity to participate, particularly in the final stages of negotiation. This failure to act in a procedurally fair manner was deemed to have compromised the integrity of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission decided that the application for approval of the enterprise agreement should be dismissed.

In its decision, the Commission highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in the negotiation and finalisation of enterprise agreements. It underscored that parties must ensure that all bargaining representatives have a genuine opportunity to participate in the process. The Commission's decision underscored the need for transparency and inclusiveness in industrial relations processes. The final order of the Commission was that the application for approval of the Teague Constructions Enterprise Agreement 2015 be dismissed, effectively invalidating the agreement due to procedural shortcomings.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established