| [2021] FWC 1017 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
D&D Traffic Management Pty Ltd
(AG2020/3491)
D&D TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & OTHER WORK ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020
Traffic Management | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS | SYDNEY, 24 FEBRUARY 2021 |
Application for approval of the D&D Traffic Management & Other Work Enterprise Agreement 2020 – interim decision.
[1] An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the D&D Traffic Management & Other Work Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made by D&D Traffic Management Pty Ltd (the Applicant) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] The Agreement will cover 271 employees of the Applicant. On 16 November 2020, a Form F16 Application for approval of the Agreement was made, and filed together with a Form F17 Statutory Declaration.
[3] On 14 December 2020, the Australian Workers Union (the AWU), wrote to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) enclosing a Form F18 Declaration. The AWU’s correspondence outlined certain undertakings proposed by the Applicant that it considered appropriate, but outlined a number of issues that resulted in the AWU opposing approval of the Agreement.
[4] On 18 December 2020, the Commission conducted a hearing to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues between the parties. Arising from that hearing, the Applicant was directed to advise the Commission and the AWU by 13 January 2020, as to whether it pressed the Application. If the Applicant was to press the Application it was directed to file further materials by 13 January 2020, and the AWU was to respond to those materials by 20 January 2020.
[5] On 13 January 2021, the Applicant filed:
(a) an outline of Submissions of the Applicant (the Applicant’s Submission);
(b) an Affidavit of William MacNamara dated 13 January, 2021, dealing with the Agreement voting process;
(c) an Affidavit of Ranko Stanojlovic dated 13 January, 2021, also dealing with the Agreement voting process;
(d) various documents relating to voting; and
(e) an undertakings document that provided 15 undertakings, many of which resolved issues raised at the hearing on 18 December 2020. That Undertaking document was, insofar as it specified undertakings, as follows:
UNDERTAKINGS
D & D Traffic Management & Other Work - Enterprise Agreement 2020 AG2020/3491
On behalf of D & D Traffic Management Pty Ltd undertakings are hereby given as follows:
1. With respect to Clause 5 of the Agreement, the commencement date will be on the first Saturday to occur on or after 14 days from the date of approval of the Agreement by the Fair Work Commission.
2. In relation to the additional week of annual leave under the National Employment Standards (NES) for certain shiftworkers, the following definition of shiftworker shall apply to employees other than those within the coverage of the Building & Construction General On Site Award 2010 as amended, in lieu of the definition at cl. 11 of the Agreement:
For the purpose of the additional week…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read D&D Traffic Management Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FWC 1017
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address included whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, including pay and other employment conditions. The court also needed to ensure the agreement complied with the requirements for independent authorisation and that the process by which the agreement was made was fair. The court examined the submissions and evidence provided by both parties to assess the agreement's compliance with these criteria.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not adequately address the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court noted that while the agreement included provisions for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, it failed to sufficiently address specific issues related to the classification of employees and their pay rates. The commission also found that the process for reaching the agreement was not entirely fair, as it did not adequately consider the views of all affected employees. As a result, the court decided not to approve the agreement.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed agreement be returned to the parties for further negotiation and amendment. The commission emphasised the need for the parties to address the identified issues and ensure that the agreement complied with all legal requirements before seeking approval again.
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.