DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a DuluxGroup
(AG2016/1566)

B&D CLONTARF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the B&D Clontarf Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the B&D Clontarf Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a DuluxGroup. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 24 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 1 July 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 April 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as DuluxGroup, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the B&D Clontarf Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). The central issue was whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether it had been made in the prescribed manner and whether it included all the mandatory terms as required by the Act.

The Commission began by examining whether the agreement had been made in the prescribed manner under section 172 of the Act. The applicant needed to demonstrate that the agreement was made without any undue influence or coercion, and that it had been made freely and fairly. The Commission found that the applicant had provided evidence that met these criteria, including the process of negotiation and the manner in which the agreement was presented to the employees for a vote. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. Next, the Commission assessed whether the agreement contained all the mandatory terms as required by the Act. The applicant had to show that the agreement included the minimum terms set out in section 232 of the Act. The Commission confirmed that the agreement contained all the necessary mandatory terms and was not missing any of the provisions that had to be included by law. Based on this assessment, the Commission concluded that the agreement complied with the requirements of the Act and granted the application for approval.

DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a DuluxGroup

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established