| [2014] FWC 8576 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd T/A Eurofins | mgt
(AG2014/8092)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | CANBERRA, 2 DECEMBER 2014 |
Application for approval of the Eurofins l mgt Agreement 2014-2017 - application dismissed.
[1] An application has been made by Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Eurofins/mgt Agreement 2014-2017 (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 Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) that had been given to the employees of the Applicant on 9 May 2014 was attached to the Form F17 - Employer’s statutory declaration in support of an application for approval of an enterprise agreement
[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.
Content of notice—bargaining representative if a low-paid authorisation is in operation
(4) If a low-paid authorisation in relation to the agreement that specifies the employer is in operation, the notice must explain the effect of paragraph 176(1)(b) and subsection 176(2) (which deal with bargaining representatives for such agreements).
Content of notice—copy of instrument of appointment to be given
(5) The notice must explain the effect of paragraph 178(2)(a) (which deals with giving a copy of an instrument of appointment of a bargaining representative to an employee’s employer).”
[4] The NERR attached to the Form F17 is inconsistent with s.174(1A)(a) of the Act in that it is not in the form prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (the FW Regulations).
[5] I wrote to the Applicant on 24 November 2014 advising that the NERR provided with the application was inconsistent with the FW Regulations.
[6] As the requirements of s.174(1A)(a) have not been complied with, I cannot be satisfied that employees have genuinely agreed to the enterprise agreement.
[7] Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the requirements of sections 186 and 187 of the Act have been satisfied.
[8] The application for approval of the Agreement is therefore dismissed.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR558382>
- AGLC
- Eurofins Environment Testing Australia Pty Ltd T/A Eurofins | mgt [2014] FWC 8576
- Case
- [2014] FWC 8576
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission carefully reviewed the provisions of the agreement, focusing on whether they complied with the minimum entitlements as prescribed by the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that several aspects of the agreement did not meet the legislative requirements, particularly regarding leave entitlements and penalty rates. The Commission concluded that the agreement failed to provide for the mandated minimum entitlements in certain areas, which was a critical factor in dismissing the application for approval. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application, determining that the agreement did not comply with the necessary standards for approval under the Act.
The Fair Work Commission's decision was grounded in a detailed examination of the agreement's provisions against the legislative framework. The Commission's dismissal of the application highlighted the necessity for enterprise agreements to fully address the minimum entitlements specified in the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of compliance with legislative requirements for the approval of enterprise agreements. The application was dismissed, and no approval was granted for the Eurofins l mgt Agreement 2014-2017.
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.