DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

FD & RG IND T/A James Newton's Bus Service and Echuca-Moama Transit
(AG2014/11069)

FD & RG IND T/A JAMES NEWTONS BUS SERVICE & ECHUCA-MOAMA TRANSIT, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Passenger vehicle transport (non rail) industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 5 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the FD & RG IND t/a James Newtons Bus Service & Echuca-Moama Transit, Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by FD & RG IND t/as James Newton’s Bus Services & Echuca-Moama Transit (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the FD & RG IND t/a James Newtons Bus Services & Echuca-Moama Transit, Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with Mr B Savva, a nominated Employee Bargaining Representative (EBR) and is to cover 13 employees who are employed as Bus and Coach Drivers, Cleaners, Greasers, and Bowser Attendants based in Rochester, Victoria. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 10 June 2014 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place between 17 and 19 December 2014. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, all 12 of the employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 23 December 2014, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr D Ind, General Manager identified the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award 2010 [MA000063] and the Transport Workers (Passenger Vehicles) Award 2002 [AP818060] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Ind said that the Agreement did provide for some terms and conditions that were less beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including lower casual loadings for some employees. However, the Agreement provides for higher rates of pay and a continuous service grant. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 18 and 19 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 12 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 28 January 2015, Mr R Lambert appeared with Mr D Ind for the applicant and Mr B Savva appeared in his capacity as EBR. Mr Lambert outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. Mr Lambert explained that rates or pay are to be increased on 1 January and 1 July during the nominal term of the Agreement by reference to percentage changes between average weekly earnings in the preceding May to November and November to May, respectively. He said the Agreement was based on other similar industry agreements which have recently been approved by the Commission. Mr Savva had filed a declaration (Form F18A) setting out that the employees he represented supported the approval of the Agreement. In addition, he supported the submissions of Mr Lambert.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the FD & RG IND t/a James Newtons Bus Service & Echuca-Moama Transit, Enterprise Agreement 2014.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 4 February 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 31 March 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

FD & RG IND trading as James Newton's Bus Service & Echuca-Moama Transit applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an enterprise agreement. The respondents were the bus drivers and the Echuca-Moama Transit Union, which represented the drivers. The dispute centred on the terms and conditions outlined in the proposed enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with reviewing and approving the agreement.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the enterprise agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The Commission had to consider whether the agreement met the requirements for being a valid enterprise agreement, including whether it was fairly negotiated and provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if any terms of the agreement contravened the provisions of the Act.

The Commission found that the enterprise agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. The agreement contained terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable, taking into account the interests of both the employer and the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement was the result of negotiations between the parties and that the terms were not unreasonable or oppressive. The Commission approved the enterprise agreement, finding that it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2014, finding it to be a fair and reasonable outcome for both the employer and the employees. The agreement was made in good faith and without coercion, and it complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

FD & RG IND T/A James Newton's Bus Service and Echuca-Moama Transit

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established