DECISION

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

Dematic Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2039)

DEMATIC PTY LIMITED - MULGRAVE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2016

Application for approval of the Dematic Pty Limited - Mulgrave Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Dematic Pty Limited - Mulgrave Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Dematic Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 12 February 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 19 February 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 February 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Price code G, AE417805 PR576976

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dematic Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission, where the company sought approval of the Dematic Pty Limited - Mulgrave Enterprise Agreement 2016. The applicant, a logistics and material handling company, was represented by counsel and argued that the agreement met the necessary requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose because the applicant sought to implement changes to its workforce that included new provisions for casual employees, shift patterns, and other employment terms and conditions.

The primary legal issues the commission was required to decide included whether the agreement was fairly negotiated, if it contained the necessary safety nets and provisions for dispute resolution, and if the agreement complied with relevant legislative standards. The applicant needed to demonstrate that the agreement was not only fairly negotiated but also provided adequate protections for employees, including minimum wage rates, leave entitlements, and reasonable working conditions. The commission also needed to consider submissions from employee representatives who argued that certain provisions in the agreement did not adequately protect employees' rights and interests.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions provided by both parties. It found that the agreement contained provisions that met the legislative requirements for safety nets, including minimum wage rates, leave entitlements, and other basic conditions of employment. However, the commission noted that some aspects of the agreement, particularly those relating to casual employees, could be improved to better protect their rights. The commission determined that while the agreement was fairly negotiated, it could be approved with certain modifications to address the concerns raised by the employee representatives. Consequently, the commission approved the enterprise agreement with specific amendments to certain clauses to better protect the rights of casual employees.

The final orders included the approval of the Dematic Pty Limited - Mulgrave Enterprise Agreement 2016, subject to the modifications outlined by the commission. These modifications required the applicant to ensure that the agreement provided adequate protections for casual employees, including fair pay rates, leave entitlements, and reasonable working conditions. The commission mandated that the applicant implement the necessary changes within a specified timeframe and report back on compliance with the approved agreement.

Dematic 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