DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

CSL Ltd T/A bioCSL
(AG2015/4458)

BIOCSL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Pharmaceutical industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the bioCSL 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 CSL Ltd T/A bioCSL. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, 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] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from CSL Ltd T/A bioCSL. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), National Union of Workers and Community and Public Sector Union being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 28 September 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved CSL Limited trading as bioCSL, and the Australian Medical Association (Victorian Branch). The dispute centred on the approval of the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application for approval was made by CSL, and the union representatives contested the application on various grounds. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the agreement provided for the mandatory requirements of the Fair Work Act, including provisions for minimum rates of pay, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and maximum weekly hours. Additionally, the court had to assess if the agreement included provisions for the protection of employees' rights, including provisions for genuine redundancy and the protection of employees' personal information. The union representatives argued that certain provisions in the agreement did not sufficiently protect employees' rights and did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that while the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015 generally met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, there were certain provisions that required modification. The commission determined that the agreement provided for the mandatory requirements of the Act, including provisions for minimum rates of pay, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and maximum weekly hours. However, the commission identified specific clauses that did not sufficiently protect employees' rights and required amendments to ensure compliance with the Act. The commission ordered that the agreement be approved with modifications to the specified clauses.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015 be approved with the modifications made to the specified clauses to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act. The modifications included changes to the redundancy provisions and the protection of employees' personal information. The union representatives were given the opportunity to make further submissions on the modifications before the agreement was finally approved.

CSL Ltd T/A bioCSL

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established