Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWCA 1685


[2025] FWCA 1685

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 185—Enterprise agreement

Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2025/1172)

WA SERVICE TECHNICIANS AGREEMENT

Manufacturing and associated industries

COMMISSIONER LIM

PERTH, 23 MAY 2025

Application for approval of the WA Service Technicians Agreement.

  1. Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has made an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the WA Service Technicians Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made under s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

  1. The Applicant 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.

  1. In compliance with s 190(4) of the Act, the bargaining representatives’ views regarding the undertakings proffered were sought. They were provided with the opportunity to raise and address any objections they had to the undertakings proffered by the Applicant. No objection was raised.

  1. Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declarations, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187, 188, and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

  1. I note that the following clause in the Agreement appears to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (the NES):

(a)Clause 24 provides for compassionate leave, but it does not appear to be triggered after the stillbirth of a child of the employee or a member of the employee’s immediate family or household as per s 105(1)(b) of the Act or after the employee or the employee’s spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage as per s 105(1)(c) of the Act.

  1. However, I am satisfied that with the undertakings provided, the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

  1. The Agreement does not contain a delegates’ rights term, as required by s 205A(1) of the Act. Clause 26A of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 (the Award) will be taken to be a term of the Agreement as per s 205A(2) of the Act.

  1. The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the organisation), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), and based on the declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the organisation is covered by the Agreement.

  1. The Agreement was approved on 23 May 2025 and, in accordance with s 54, will operate from 30 May 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2027.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE529085  PR787477>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWCA 1685
Case
[2025] FWCA 1685
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd sought approval for the Western Australian Service Technicians Agreement. This agreement sought to establish a new enterprise agreement to cover employees engaged as service technicians in the Western Australian region. The application was made pursuant to section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) on behalf of a number of employees who were concerned about the terms of the agreement, particularly in relation to pay rates and classification of roles.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" under section 234(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act. The Commission also needed to consider whether the agreement was in the public interest and whether it complied with the national workplace relations framework.

The Commission found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as it provided for improved pay rates and conditions for service technicians, and met the "better off overall test." The Commission also found that the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that it was in the public interest. The Commission approved the agreement, noting that it provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for both the employees and the employer.

No further orders were made.

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.