Down Under Control Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 6353

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Down Under Control Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7049)

DOWN UNDER CONTROL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 2 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Down Under Control Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Down Under Control Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Down Under Control Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. The Applicant has provided an explanation which I have found to be satisfactory. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 8 August 2014.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 9 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 January 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Down Under Control Pty Ltd sought approval of the Down Under Control Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute centred on the provisions regarding shift rotations and rostering practices. The Fair Work Commission was the court in this matter.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the shift rotation provisions in the agreement unfairly disadvantaged certain employees, particularly those with young children or caring responsibilities. The Commission had to determine if these provisions met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 for a fair and reasonable enterprise agreement. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the provisions were consistent with the principles of procedural fairness and did not adversely affect employees in a manner that was unjust or unreasonable.

The Commission found that the shift rotation provisions did not unfairly disadvantage employees with young children or caring responsibilities. It determined that the provisions were procedurally fair, as they allowed for consultation and provided a mechanism for addressing individual concerns. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the provisions were reasonable in the circumstances, considering the operational needs of the business. The application for approval of the enterprise agreement was therefore approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established