DECISION

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

Cooma Coaches Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1438)

COOMA COACHES PASSENGER VEHICLE DRIVERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Passenger vehicle transport (non rail) industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL	SYDNEY, 26 JULY 2016

Application for approval of the Cooma Coaches Passenger Vehicle Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016

[1] An application has been made by Cooma Coaches Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cooma Coaches Passenger Vehicle Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement covers all employees who are employed wholly or principally by the company as bus drivers providing services under a Rural or Regional Bus Industry Contract. As per the requirement under s.186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by the Agreement was fairly chosen.

Flexibility Term

[3] The flexibility term at clause 27 of the Agreement does not meet the requirements of
s.203(2)(b) of the Act. The term does not require an individual flexibility arrangement to be about permitted matters and to not include unlawful terms.

[4] Pursuant to s. 203(2)(b) of the Act, the model consultation term at Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 will be taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached at Annexure A of this decision.

Better off overall test

[5] With respect to the better off overall test (BOOT) under s.186 of the Act, the base rates of pay under the Agreement are significantly higher than the rates under the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award 2010 (the Award), being the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the BOOT. However, the weekend penalty rates under the Agreement are lower than those set out under the Award.

[6] On 16 June 2016 the Commission wrote to the Applicant with concerns that casual employees who work regularly on weekends would be worse off under the Agreement. On 30 June 2016 the Applicant provided an undertaking which is annexed to this decision (Annexure B). I am confident that the undertaking remedies this issue.

Conclusion

[7] Taking into account the higher rates of pay under the Agreement when read in conjunction with the undertaking and when compared with the Award, I am satisfied that the Agreement results in employees being better off under the Agreement. The undertaking should be brought to the attention of the employees.

[8] 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.

[9] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1), the Agreement will operate 7 days from approval. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

Annexure B

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Cooma Coaches Pty Ltd involved an application for the approval of the Cooma Coaches Passenger Vehicle Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016. The applicant, Cooma Coaches Pty Ltd, sought approval of the agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The respondents, represented by the Transport Workers Union, contested the application on various grounds, primarily arguing that the agreement did not meet the standards set forth by the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is the tribunal responsible for resolving workplace relations disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it was the product of genuine bargaining, and whether it met the "better off overall test" by ensuring that employees were not worse off than under their previous conditions of employment. Additionally, the Commission had to examine the specific provisions of the agreement to determine whether they were fair and reasonable in all respects.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith and was the product of genuine bargaining. It was determined that the agreement met the "better off overall test" and provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The Commission also found that the agreement did not contain any provisions that were unfair or unreasonable. Consequently, the application for approval was successful, and the Cooma Coaches Passenger Vehicle Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 was approved.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission were that the Cooma Coaches Passenger Vehicle Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 be approved and registered under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement was to be in effect from the date of the decision and would apply to the employees covered by the agreement. The Commission also ordered that the agreement be published on the Fair Work Ombudsman's website to ensure transparency and accessibility for all parties involved.

Cooma Coaches 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