DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd
(AG2015/735)

ERNEST HENRY MINING PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Mining industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY	BRISBANE, 12 MAY 2015

Application for approval of the Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd applies for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the AWU.

[3] On 1 May 2015 an undertaking was provided by the Employer in relation to a number of matters. Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I accept the Employer’s undertakings. In accordance with s.201(3) of the Act I note that a copy of the undertaking is attached to the Agreement and forms part of the Agreement.

[4] 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 19 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 May 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd and the Australian Workers Union. The dispute centred around the approval of the 2015 Enterprise Agreement, which had been proposed by the company and rejected by the union. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement should be approved and registered under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issues were whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Act and if it was in the best interests of the employees. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees, and if the process leading to the agreement was compliant with the procedural fairness requirements.

The Commission considered various factors, including the negotiation process, the terms of the agreement, and the impact on the employees. It was noted that the agreement contained provisions that were potentially disadvantageous to the employees, particularly in relation to redundancy and termination. However, the Commission also acknowledged the need for the company to remain competitive in a challenging market. The decision hinged on balancing these competing interests and ensuring that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that the process was procedurally fair. The Commission ultimately found that while the agreement had some shortcomings, the overall balance of fairness was in favour of approving the agreement, given the need to maintain the company's viability and competitiveness.

The Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the identified issues. The final orders required the company to negotiate with the union to revise specific provisions of the agreement to ensure they were fair and reasonable for the employees. The Commission also mandated that the company provide additional information to the union to facilitate the negotiation process. The approval was conditional upon the company and the union reaching a revised agreement within a specified timeframe. This decision underscored the importance of both procedural fairness and the substantive fairness of the terms in enterprise agreements.

Ernest Henry Mining 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