DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10302)

FENNER DUNLOP DARWIN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Northern Territory
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 13 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the Fenner Dunlop Darwin Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Fenner Dunlop Darwin Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the Agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 20 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 November 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd sought approval of the Fenner Dunlop Darwin Enterprise Agreement 2014 from the Fair Work Commission, which was subsequently appealed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was appropriately certified as a simple, low-paid, or certified enterprise agreement. The crux of the dispute centred on the classification of the agreement, specifically whether it qualified as a simple enterprise agreement, which does not require a direct comparison with relevant awards or agreements, as stipulated under section 187 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court examined the nature of the proposed agreement, considering the specific terms and conditions it proposed, and whether these terms were straightforward and did not introduce new conditions of employment. The application hinged on whether the agreement's provisions were sufficiently uncomplicated to meet the criteria for a simple enterprise agreement. The court also needed to determine whether any of the agreement's provisions necessitated a comparison with relevant awards or other agreements to ensure fairness and compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the proposed agreement contained several provisions that required a comparison with relevant awards to ensure that the agreement was fair and did not disadvantage employees. The court concluded that the agreement did not meet the criteria for a simple enterprise agreement and could not be certified as such. Instead, the agreement was deemed to be a low-paid enterprise agreement, which required a comparison with relevant awards. The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific provisions of the agreement that necessitated such a comparison to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for approval of the agreement as a simple enterprise agreement but found it appropriate to certify the agreement as a low-paid enterprise agreement.

Fenner Dunlop Australia 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