DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Efab Steel Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2629)

EFAB STEEL PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 6 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Efab Steel Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Efab Steel Pty Ltd 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 Efab Steel Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 6 May 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 May 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Efab Steel Pty Ltd sought approval of the Efab Steel Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016. The respondent, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement contained terms that were contrary to the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the definition of 'rostered day off' and its implications on penalty rates for shift workers.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the terms of the enterprise agreement regarding 'rostered day off' were compliant with the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the respondent argued that the definition of 'rostered day off' led to the payment of penalty rates for periods when employees were not actually working, which was not permissible under the Act. The employer contended that the definition was necessary to ensure that employees received the correct pay for their work and that it did not contravene the Act.

The Commission considered the legislative framework and the definitions set out in the Fair Work Act. It concluded that the definition of 'rostered day off' in the agreement did not align with the statutory provisions. The Commission found that the agreement required employees to be paid penalty rates for periods when they were not actually working, which was contrary to the Act. As a result, the Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement. The parties were directed to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement that complied with the Fair Work Act.

Efab Steel 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