DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited

[2014] FWCA 5353

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited
(AG2014/1812)

DHL SUPPLY CHAIN (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED RETAIL MERCHANDISE AGREEMENT - QUEENSLAND

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited Retail Merchandise Agreement - Queensland.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited Retail Merchandise Agreement - Queensland (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited (the Applicant). The agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[2] I was initially concerned with some aspects of the proposed Agreement and wrote to the company outlining those issues on 31 July 2014. On 1 August 2014 I received a signed undertaking in response to the queries from Leigh Brooks, General Manager, Human Resources at the Applicant. This undertaking now forms part of the Agreement and is kept on the file. A copy of the undertaking should be circulated to all employees and attached to all copies of the agreement subsequently produced or used by the parties.

[3] The undertaking which now forms part of the Agreement is attached.

[4] I am satisfied that the effect of the undertaking is not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement; or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Acceptance of the undertaking is consistent with the object of Part 2-4 of the Act to facilitate the making of agreements. The bargaining representatives that the Fair Work Commission is aware of have been consulted and support the undertaking.

[5] As the agreement does not contain a consultation term that meets the requirements of s.205(1) and 205(1A) of the Act, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement.

[6] This is a greenfields agreement that meets the requirements of Section 172(2)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the National Union of Workers are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[7] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) I note the Agreement was made with the National Union of Workers and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 August 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited Retail Merchandise Agreement - Queensland. The application was made under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the dispute centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for registration and whether it complied with the Act's provisions. The primary issue the Commission had to determine was whether the agreement contained the necessary elements as stipulated by the Fair Work Act and if it was likely to have the effect of improving the terms and conditions of employment for the employees covered by the agreement.

The Commission examined the agreement to ensure it included all the mandated terms and conditions, such as minimum wages, penalty rates, leave provisions, and other employment standards. The analysis also included assessing whether the agreement was consistent with the public interest and whether it provided a safety net of minimum standards for the employees. Furthermore, the Commission considered whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it contained provisions that would facilitate the resolution of workplace disputes.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the agreement met the statutory requirements and was likely to improve the terms and conditions of employment for the employees. The Commission found that the agreement contained all the necessary terms and conditions and was consistent with the public interest. The Commission also determined that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and included provisions that would facilitate the resolution of workplace disputes. Therefore, the Commission approved the agreement, and it was registered with the Fair Work Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established