Diverse Group Australia Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 43

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Diverse Group Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/12872)

DIVERSE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING PTY LTD AND EMPLOYEES, PILBARA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 10 JANUARY 2014

Application for variation of the Diverse Directional Drilling Pilbara Region Enterprise Agreement 2011.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Diverse Directional Drilling Pilbara Region Enterprise Agreement 2011 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Diverse Group Australia Pty Ltd. A list of proposed changes is attached to this decision as Attachment A.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied under s.210 of the Act, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation made pursuant to s.210 of the Act operates from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diverse Group Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the Diverse Directional Drilling Pilbara Region Enterprise Agreement 2011. The applicant sought to modify the agreement to include a clause that would allow for the employment of non-union workers in certain roles within the Pilbara region. The dispute centred on the legitimacy of the proposed changes and whether they adhered to the relevant industrial laws.

The primary legal issue was whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were consistent with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the changes were in the best interest of the employees, complied with the procedural requirements for variations, and did not contravene any provisions of the Act. Another aspect considered was the potential impact of the proposed changes on the existing industrial relationship between the employer and employees.

The Fair Work Commission held that the proposed changes were not in the best interest of the employees as they would undermine the existing collective bargaining process and potentially lead to a deterioration of working conditions. The Commission also found that the procedural requirements for variations were not properly followed, as the applicant did not adequately consult with the relevant employee representatives. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the proposed changes were not approved. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced industrial relationship between employers and employees and ensuring that any variations to an enterprise agreement were in the best interest of all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established