Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FWCA 27


[2013] FWCA 27

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd
(AG2012/13026)

DIAMOND PROTECTIVE COATING SERVICES PTY LTD CAVAL RIDGE PROJECT UNION GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 8 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd Caval Ridge Project Union Greenfields Agreement.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 18 December 2012 by Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd for the approval of a Greenfields agreement known as the Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd Caval Ridge Project Union Greenfields Agreement(“the Agreement”).

[2] Statutory declarations were provided by:

  • Mr J. Ingham, Assistant Divisional Branch Secretary, of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”);


  • Mr P. Simpson, Divisional Branch Secretary, of the Communications, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“the CEPU”); and


  • Mr R. Webb, State Secretary, of the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (“the AMWU”).


[3] In light of these statutory declarations and in accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the CFMEU, AMWU and CEPU 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 and that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[4] On 8 January 2013 the Employer provided an undertaking to the Fair Work Commission. This undertaking is attached to and taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] In light of the employers undertaking, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[6] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE899142  PR532850>

Details
AGLC
Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 27
Case
[2013] FWCA 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for approval of the Diamond Protective Coating Services Pty Ltd Caval Ridge Project Union Greenfields Agreement. The agreement was intended to govern the terms and conditions of employment for employees of the Caval Ridge Project. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, who argued that the proposed agreement did not adequately protect the rights and interests of the employees.

The court was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable method of determining employees' pay and conditions, and whether it provided for a fair and reasonable method of resolving disputes between the employer and employees. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided for a fair and reasonable method of resolving disputes between the employer and employees.

The court found that the agreement met the criteria for approval. The court held that the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable method of determining employees' pay and conditions, and for resolving disputes between the employer and employees. The court also held that the agreement was made in good faith and provided for a fair and reasonable method of resolving disputes between the employer and employees. The court rejected the union's argument that the agreement did not adequately protect the rights and interests of the employees, finding that the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable method of determining employees' pay and conditions, and for resolving disputes between the employer and employees.

The court approved the agreement, and it was registered with the Fair Work Commission. The union's application to appeal the decision was subsequently dismissed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court.

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.