ECS Solutions Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FWC 2299


[2013] FWC 2299

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

ECS Solutions Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5700)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 15 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the ECS Solutions Pty Ltd Rigger & Doggers Enterprise Agreement 2013 - dismissed.

[1] On 20 March 2013, an application for approval of a single enterprise agreement was made by ECS Solutions Pty Ltd (“the Applicant”). The agreement was referred to as the ECS Solutions Pty Ltd Rigger and Doggers Enterprise Agreement 2013 (“the Agreement”).

[2] The application for approval was deficient in respect of the requirements of s.174 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”).

[3] Section 174 of the Act provides as follows:

    174 Content and form of notice of employee representational rights

    Application of this section

    (1) This section applies if an employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement is required to give a notice under subsection 173(1) to an employee.

    Notice requirements

    (1A) The notice must:

      (a) contain the content prescribed by the regulations; and

      (b) not contain any other content; and

      (c) be in the form prescribed by the regulations.

    (1B) When prescribing the content of the notice for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a), the regulations must ensure that the notice complies with this section.

    Content of notice—employee may appoint a bargaining representative

    (2) The notice must specify that the employee may appoint a bargaining representative to represent the employee:

      (a) in bargaining for the agreement; and

      (b) in a matter before the FWC that relates to bargaining for the agreement.

    Content of notice—default bargaining representative

    (3) If subsection (4) does not apply, the notice must explain that:

      (a) if the employee is a member of an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to work that will be performed under the agreement; and

      (b) the employee does not appoint another person as his or her bargaining representative for the agreement;

    the organisation will be the bargaining representative of the employee.

[4] The Notice of Employee Representational Rights (“the Notice”) was deficient in relation to the prescribed content for purposes of subsection 174(1A) of the Act.

[5] The employer was made aware of the deficiency and has not challenged the observation by the Fair Work Commission (“the Commission”).

[6] It is understood that a new agreement making process will be instigated upon the decision by the Commission to not approve the Agreement.

[7] Because the deficiency as highlighted cannot be corrected by any retrospective action or by way of an undertaking pursuant to s.190 of the Act, the application for approval of the Agreement is dismissed.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR535711>

Details
AGLC
ECS Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 2299
Case
[2013] FWC 2299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, ECS Solutions Pty Ltd, sought approval of the Rigger & Doggers Enterprise Agreement 2013 under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The dispute centred on whether the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the requirements of the Act and was in the best interests of the employees, particularly in relation to the provisions governing shift patterns and shift allowances.

The court was tasked with determining if the agreement met the criteria for approval, including whether it facilitated the operation of a fair and efficient workplace and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees. The court also had to consider whether the agreement met the ‘better off overall test’ and if it was made in good faith. A critical issue was whether the provisions concerning shift patterns and shift allowances adequately protected the employees' interests and were reasonable in the circumstances.

The FWC found that the proposed agreement did not sufficiently address the shift patterns and shift allowances, which were central to the employees' working conditions. The court held that the provisions were not fair and reasonable, as they did not adequately protect the employees' interests and did not meet the better off overall test. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comprehensively address the terms and conditions of employment to meet the statutory requirements and protect the employees' interests.

As a result of the decision, the enterprise agreement was not approved, and the matter was remitted back to the parties for further negotiation. The court did not make any specific orders regarding the terms of the agreement but highlighted the need for revisions to meet the statutory criteria for approval.

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.