DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

DHL Express (Australia) Pty Limited
(AG2018/7138)

DHL EXPRESS CUSTOMER SERVICE QUEENSLAND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018

Clerical industry
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	MELBOURNE, 21 MARCH 2019

Application for approval of the DHL Express Customer Service Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DHL Express Customer Service Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by DHL Express (Australia) Pty Limited. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 28 March 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 27 March 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved DHL Express (Australia) Pty Limited and the Transport Workers Union of Australia. The dispute centred around the approval of the DHL Express Customer Service Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2018. The Transport Workers Union sought approval of the agreement, while DHL Express contested the application on the grounds that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issues revolved around whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it complied with the relevant provisions of the Act.

The Commission examined the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It considered the procedural fairness, the merits of the agreement, and the implications for the employees. The Transport Workers Union argued that the agreement was fair and met the legislative requirements. DHL Express, on the other hand, contended that the agreement did not adequately address certain issues, such as job security and redundancy provisions, and that it did not sufficiently protect the interests of the employees.

After a thorough analysis, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission found that the agreement lacked adequate provisions regarding job security and redundancy, which were crucial for the employees' protection. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission's decision was based on the need to ensure that the agreement adequately safeguarded the employees' interests, as mandated by the Fair Work Act.

DHL Express (Australia) Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established