DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ertech Pty Ltd
(AG2017/898)

ERTECH MECHANICAL SERVICES SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC	MELBOURNE, 13 APRIL 2017

Application for approval of the Ertech Mechanical Services Single Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ertech Mechanical Services Single Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Ertech 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. 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.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 13 April 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 20 April 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 April 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ertech Pty Ltd was the applicant in an application seeking approval of the Ertech Mechanical Services Single Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The applicant was seeking approval of the agreement under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The nature of the dispute was the procedural fairness of the application, specifically regarding the process of bargaining and the engagement of employees in the agreement.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the applicant had engaged in good faith bargaining with the relevant employees, whether the employees had been adequately engaged in the bargaining process, and whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The applicant argued that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that the employees had been adequately engaged. The applicant also submitted that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the applicant had engaged in good faith bargaining and that the employees had been adequately engaged in the bargaining process. The Commission also found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission approved the application and the agreement was registered. The applicant was ordered to provide a copy of the agreement to the Fair Work Ombudsman and to take such steps as were necessary to give effect to the agreement. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Ertech 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