Dentsply Sirona T/A Dentsply Sirona Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 3331

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Dentsply Sirona T/A Dentsply Sirona Pty Ltd

(AG2025/3155)

DENTSPLY SIRONA PTY LIMITED & UNITED WORKERS UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025-2028

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER REDFORD	MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2025

Application for approval of the Dentsply Sirona Pty Limited & United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2025-2028

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as Dentsply Sirona Pty Limited & United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2025-2028 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Dentsply Sirona T/A Dentsply Sirona Pty Ltd (Dentsply). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

Extension of time

Section 185(3)(a) of the Act provides that an application for approval of an agreement must be made no later than 14 days after the agreement being made. The Agreement was made on 28 August 2025 and lodged on 15 September 2025, some 18 days after the Agreement was made and therefore 4 days late. I have considered the explanation provided by Dentsply for the late lodgement and am satisfied in all the circumstances that it is fair to extend the period to the date on which the application was lodged

Undertakings

In response to several issues raised with Dentsply in relation to its application, it has provided written undertakings, a copy of which are attached in Annexure A. The United Workers’ Union (UWU), who was a bargaining representative for the Agreement, confirmed it had no objection to these undertakings. 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. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.
The undertakings relate to:

a.Annualised salary
b.Engagement of casual, trainee and apprentice employees
c.Casual employees – minimum engagement and overtime
d.Trainee and apprentice employees – rates of pay
e.Junior employees – rates of pay

Workplace Delegates Rights

Clauses 49 and 50 of the agreement deals with representation by Union delegates and trade union training leave. These are delegates rights clauses because they provide generally for the exercise of the rights of workplace delegates. The clauses are less beneficial than clause 29A of the Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2020 (the Award) because they are silent on the exercise of several rights conferred on workplace delegates by the Award’s clause, and the provision for leave for workplace delegates is inferior.
Section 205A(2) of the Act provides that where a delegates’ rights term is less favourable in an agreement compared to the modern award, the agreement term will have no effect, and the most favourable modern award term shall be taken to be a term of the enterprise agreement. I consider that the delegates right terms provided for in clauses 49 and 50 of the Agreement is less favourable than the term in in the Award and pursuant to s 205A(2) of the Act, the delegates’ rights term in clause 29A of the Award is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

Interaction with the National Employment Standards

Clause 4.5 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement will be read and interpreted in conjunction with the National Employment Standards (NES), and where there is an inconsistency between this Agreement and the NES, and the NES provides a greater benefit, the NES provisions will apply to the extent of the inconsistency (NES precedence clause).
On this basis, I am satisfied that the apparent inconsistencies with the NES outlined below do not prevent the approval of this agreement:

a.Clause 12.12 of the Agreement – casual conversion – which contains a requirement that to be eligible for casual conversion, a casual employee must have worked not less than 10 hours per week over a continuous 12 month period – this requirement is not part of the provisions set out in the NES in respect to casual conversion.
b.Clause 32 – compassionate leave
c.Clause 33.11 – public holidays – which provides that where an employee is absent without excuse or permission on a working day preceding or following a holiday the employee is not entitled to payment under the Agreement’s public holiday provision – this provision is not consistent with the NES and it appears that a result of the NES precedence clause would not have application to employees covered by this Agreement.

Consideration

Subject to the further submissions provided by Dentsply in response to concerns raised by the Commission in relation to this Agreement, and 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 UWU, a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the UWU.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate 7 days after approval.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

Dentsply Sirona Pty Ltd, trading as Dentsply Sirona, applied for the approval of its enterprise agreement with the United Workers Union for the period 2025-2028. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the primary focus was on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union and the employer both presented their views on various clauses of the agreement, which included terms related to employment conditions, pay rates, and workplace practices. The central issue was whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly those concerning the need for the agreement to provide for the "efficient determination of terms and conditions".

The Commission examined whether the agreement was sufficiently clear and precise in its terms, ensuring that it provided for the efficient determination of terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act. It also considered whether the agreement had been fairly and properly made, including whether there had been genuine bargaining between the parties. The Commission found that the agreement was clear, precise, and provided for the efficient determination of terms and conditions. It also found that the agreement had been made through genuine bargaining and was in the best interests of the employees.

In light of these findings, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement. The approval was based on the conclusion that the agreement met all necessary legal requirements and was beneficial for the employees. The decision highlighted the importance of clear and precise terms in an enterprise agreement, as well as the necessity of genuine bargaining between the employer and the union. The final orders included the approval of the Dentsply Sirona Pty Limited & United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2025-2028, which would now be binding on the parties for the specified period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established