Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Pty Limited

[2013] FWCA 2293

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Pty Limited
(AG2013/805)

DOWNER EDI MINING BLASTING SERVICES WESTERN REGION METALLIFEROUS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Mining industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 16 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Western Region Metalliferous Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Western Region Metalliferous Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Pty Limited. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 16 April 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services Western Region Metalliferous Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was made under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Downer EDI Mining Blasting Services, sought approval for the agreement which was intended to regulate the employment conditions of its employees in the Western Region Metalliferous Enterprise. The primary legal issues the Commission had to address were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for registration, including compliance with the procedural fairness standards set out in the Fair Work Act and the implications of any potential breaches of these standards.

The Commission considered the procedural fairness requirements, including the necessity for proper consultation with the employees and whether the process allowed for meaningful participation. It examined the evidence presented regarding the consultation process and the steps taken to ensure that employees were adequately informed and had an opportunity to provide input. The Commission found that there were shortcomings in the consultation process, particularly regarding the timing and effectiveness of the information provided to the employees. However, it also noted that the applicant had taken steps to remedy these issues and that the overall process had allowed for meaningful participation.

Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the procedural fairness requirements were not strictly adhered to, but the overall process allowed for meaningful participation by the employees. Given the efforts made by the applicant to rectify the procedural shortcomings and the absence of significant detriment to the employees, the Commission approved the agreement. The Commission found that the benefits of the agreement, including improved terms and conditions for the employees, outweighed the procedural deficiencies. The applicant's application was therefore granted, and the agreement was registered under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established