Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services

[2014] FWCA 827

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services
(AG2013/12770)

THE EXACT MINING SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Mining industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BARTEL	ADELAIDE, 4 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Exact Mining Services Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Exact Mining Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) has been made by Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd T/A Exact Mining Services (the employer). The application has been made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is an application for a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[3] United Voice Northern Territory Branch (United Voice), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice pursuant to s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.210(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers United Voice.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 11 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 3 February 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Exact Mining Services Pty Ltd, trading as Exact Mining Services, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Exact Mining Services Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute was heard before Commissioner O’Brien in the Australian Capital Territory. The primary issue before the court was whether the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically focusing on the procedural fairness and the inclusion of a minimum 24-hour rest period for employees.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the agreement, ensuring that the employer had genuinely negotiated with the relevant employee representatives. It considered whether the process followed was appropriate and whether the agreement reflected the outcome of proper negotiations. Additionally, the court assessed the terms of the agreement, particularly the clause that allowed for employees to work 12-hour shifts without a mandatory 24-hour rest period. This was scrutinised to ensure it did not contravene the provisions of the Fair Work Act that mandate a minimum rest period between shifts.

After careful consideration, the court determined that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and was procedurally fair. However, regarding the rest period, the court found that the clause allowing for 12-hour shifts without a mandatory rest period did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court made a variation to the agreement, mandating a minimum 24-hour rest period between shifts, thus ensuring compliance with the legislation. This modification was made to protect the health and safety of the employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established