| [2016] FWCA 6672 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.217 - Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty
Devro Pty Ltd T/A Devro
(AG2016/5530)
DEVRO PTY LIMITED MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE | SYDNEY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2016 |
Application for variation of the Devro Pty Limited Maintenance Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Devro Pty Limited Maintenance Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair work Act 2009 (the Act) by Devro Pty Ltd T/A Devro.
[2] The application seeks to vary the Agreement as follows:
1. By deleting Annexure A – Rates of Pay and inserting the attached Annexure A – Rates of Pay.
[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, incorporating the variations, is attached.
[5] The variation operates from 19 September 2016.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE416104 PR585496>
Annexure A – Rates of Pay
Class-ification | Shift/ Day | Annual Salary | Base Hourly Rate | Annual Salary | Base Hourly Rate | Annual Salary | Base Hourly Rate | Bonus | Annual Salary | Base Hourly Rate | Bonus | Bonus |
1 Oct 2013 | 1 Oct 2013 | Commencement Date | Commencement Date | 1 Oct 2015 | 1 Oct 2015 | 1 Oct 2015 | 1 Oct 2016 | 1 Oct 2016 | 1 Oct 2016 | 1 October 2017 | ||
DF1 Fitter | Shift | $94,989.14 | $30.6339 | $97,126.40 | $31.3232 | $99,311.74 | $32.0279 | $630.43 | $101,546.25 | $32.7486 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF1 Fitter | Day | $61,511.31 | $30.6339 | $62,895.31 | $31.3232 | $64,310.46 | $32.0279 | $630.43 | $65,757.44 | $32.7486 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF2 Fitter | Shift | $97,326.07 | $31.3818 | $99,515.91 | $32.0879 | $101,755.01 | $32.8099 | $630.43 | $104,044.50 | $33.5481 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF2 Fitter | Day | $63,014.70 | $31.3818 | $64,432.53 | $32.0879 | $65,882.26 | $32.8099 | $630.43 | $67,364.61 | $33.5481 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF3 Fitter | Shift | $99,664.67 | $32.1294 | $101,907.13 | $32.8523 | $104,200.04 | $33.5915 | $630.43 | $106,544.54 | $34.3473 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF3 Fitter | Day | $64,514.71 | $32.1294 | $65,966.29 | $32.8523 | $67,450.53 | $33.5915 | $630.43 | $68,968.17 | $34.3473 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF4 Fitter | Shift | $104,341.88 | $33.6248 | $106,689.57 | $34.3814 | $109,090.09 | $35.1549 | $630.43 | $111,544.61 | $35.9459 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF4 Fitter | Day | $67,518.12 | $33.6248 | $69,037.28 | $34.3814 | $70,590.62 | $35.1549 | $630.43 | $72,178.91 | $35.9459 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF5 Fitter | Shift | $109,015.72 | $35.1199 | $111,468.57 | $35.9101 | $113,976.62 | $36.7181 | $630.43 | $116,541.09 | $37.5442 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF5 Fitter | Day | $70,519.83 | $35.1199 | $72,106.53 | $35.9101 | $73,728.92 | $36.7181 | $630.43 | $75,387.82 | $37.5442 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF6 Fitter | Shift | $118,368.46 | $38.1105 | $121,031.75 | $38.9680 | $123,754.96 | $39.8448 | $630.43 | $126,539.45 | $40.7413 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF6 Fitter | Day | $76,524.95 | $38.1105 | $78,246.76 | $38.9680 | $80,007.31 | $39.8448 | $630.43 | $81,807.48 | $40.7413 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
DF6 Fitter | Gel | $120,526.52 | $38.1105 | $123,238.37 | $38.9680 | $126,011.23 | $39.8448 | $630.43 | $128,846.48 | $40.7413 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
Engineering store-worker or trades assistant (with or without a certificate) | Day | $57,139.49 | $28.4551 | $58,425.13 | $29.0953 | $59,739.69 | $29.7500 | $630.43 | $61,083.84 | $30.4194 | $630.43 | $1,260.87 |
- AGLC
- Devro Pty Ltd T/A Devro [2016] FWCA 6672
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 6672
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the applicant had provided adequate notice of the proposed changes and whether the application process adhered to the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the proposed changes to the agreement were reasonable and necessary in light of the current economic and operational circumstances faced by the company.
In its decision, the Commission found that the applicant had not adequately notified the relevant employees of the proposed changes, thereby failing to observe procedural fairness. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of transparent and timely communication in the application process to ensure all parties are fully informed and can adequately respond to proposed changes. The Commission also noted that, had the application been procedurally sound, it would have needed to consider the merits of the proposed changes, but this consideration was ultimately not required due to the procedural failings.
As a result of the findings, the Commission did not need to make any orders regarding the proposed changes to the Maintenance Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014. The decision highlights the critical importance of procedural fairness in enterprise agreement variations and the need for thorough and transparent communication between employers and employees during such processes.
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.