DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ECIS Pty Ltd
(AG2015/4900)

ECIS PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the ECIS Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise Agreement known as the ECIS Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by ECIS Pty Ltd.

[2] This is a greenfields Agreement that meets the requirements of s.172(2)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the Australian Workers’ Union West Australian Branch is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[3] The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer however taking into account the factors in ss.186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[4] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) I note the Agreement was made with the Australian Workers’ Union West Australian Branch and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 18 September 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 March 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ECIS Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the ECIS Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2015. The Australian Workers’ Union was the other party to the agreement. The agreement was for employees working on the Roy Hill iron ore mine in Western Australia. The application was made under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose because the union had not certified the agreement as a registered agreement. The union argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 235 of the Act. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and found that the union's objections were valid. The agreement was not suitable for registration as it did not contain an adequate dispute resolution process and did not provide for the proper consultation with employees. The Commission also found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for an enterprise agreement under section 173 of the Act. The application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

The key legal issues before the Fair Work Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it met the requirements for registration as an enterprise agreement under section 173 of the Act. The Commission considered whether the agreement provided for an adequate dispute resolution process and whether it provided for proper consultation with employees. The Commission also considered whether the agreement met the requirements for an enterprise agreement, including whether it covered a sufficient number of employees and whether it contained the necessary provisions for the protection of employees' rights and entitlements. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for registration as an enterprise agreement and dismissed the application for approval.

The Fair Work Commission held that the agreement did not provide for an adequate dispute resolution process and did not provide for proper consultation with employees. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for an enterprise agreement under section 173 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 235 of the Act, which requires that a registered agreement be suitable for registration. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not suitable for registration as it did not provide for an adequate dispute resolution process and did not provide for proper consultation with employees. The application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement and the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for registration and dismissed the application for approval.

ECIS Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established