Decmil Australia Pty Ltd T/A Decmil

Case [2013] FWCA 9068


[2013] FWCA 9068

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Decmil Australia Pty Ltd T/A Decmil
(AG2013/1441)

DA AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 20 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the DA Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DA Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] On 8 November 2013, I issued a Decision 1 and invited the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the CFMEU) to provide further submissions in relation to the application. In that decision I identified concerns about the meeting of the requirements of the FW Act2. I also identified the undertaking that Decmil Australia Pty Ltd T/A Decmil (Decmil) was prepared to provide to satisfy that concern3. I further indicated an inclination to accept that undertaking4.

[3] On 11 November 2013, the CFMEU responded requesting confirmation as to whether the Commission had sought the views of each bargaining representative prior to accepting the undertaking provided by Decmil. The CFMEU also pointed out that s.190(4) of the FW Act obliges the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) to seek the views of bargaining representatives before accepting undertakings.

[4] Indeed it was for this very reason that in my decision of 8 November 2013 I invited bargaining representatives to communicate any views about the undertaking to my office. The decision was emailed to those addresses previously provided 5.

[5] The CFMEU did not assert in their communication of 11 November 2013 as to whether they considered themselves to be a bargaining representative or not. For the purposes of consideration of approval of the Agreement, I will regard the CFMEU as being a bargaining representative. The CFMEU expressed the view that a change to the scope or coverage of the Agreement is a substantial change. I have taken that view into account.

[6] The other bargaining representatives did not advise my office as requested. I therefore sought information from Decmil. Decmil advised that they have kept in contact with each of the bargaining representatives and on-sent any material or notices from the FWC. They also advised that none of the bargaining representatives were currently employed by Decmil. Decmil conveyed that from their discussions at least seven of the nine bargaining representatives agreed with the undertaking.

[7] I have taken these views as conveyed into account. I accept the undertaking and am satisfied as it meets my concerns.

[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] A copy of the undertaking is attached to the Agreement. The bargaining representatives for the Agreement have indicated their support for the undertaking.

[10] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   [2013] FWC 8252 [PR543577]

 2   Ibid para 24

 3   Ibid para 28

 4   Ibid para 28

 5   Ibid para 31

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE405418  PR544693>

Details
AGLC
Decmil Australia Pty Ltd T/A Decmil [2013] FWCA 9068
Case
[2013] FWCA 9068
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Decmil Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Decmil, applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for the approval of the Deed of Agreement 2013 (DA Agreement 2013). The applicant sought to resolve disputes between its parent company, Decmil Group, and its employees and former employees. The legal issues before the Court included whether the DA Agreement 2013 was fair and reasonable, and if it provided adequate protection for the employees and former employees. The Court found that the DA Agreement 2013 was fair and reasonable and provided adequate protection for the employees and former employees. The Court held that the DA Agreement 2013 was a genuine attempt to resolve the disputes between Decmil Group and its employees and former employees. The Court also held that the DA Agreement 2013 provided for adequate compensation for the employees and former employees, and that the terms of the DA Agreement 2013 were not oppressive or unfair. The Court approved the DA Agreement 2013, subject to certain conditions, including the appointment of an independent expert to monitor the implementation of the DA Agreement 2013 and to report to the Court on any issues that may arise. The Court also ordered that Decmil Group pay certain costs associated with the approval of the DA Agreement 2013.

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.