DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

GH Varley Pty Ltd
(AG2021/8173)

GH VARLEY PTY LTD TOMAGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER MATHESON	SYDNEY, 18 NOVEMBER 2021

Application for approval of the GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement (Agreement). The application was made by GH Varley Pty Ltd (Applicant) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The name given as the name of the Agreement on page 1, row 1 of the Agreement is “GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021” (emphasis added). The reference to “2018-2021” is an apparent error.

[3] The Applicant applied for a correction seeking that the Commission exercise its powers pursuant to s.586 of the Act to amend page 1, row 1 of the Agreement so that the reference to “2018-2021” is removed and it reads “GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement”. I am satisfied that this amendment should be allowed and that it is appropriate to do so pursuant to s.586 of the Act. I make the amendment. I also make a corresponding amendment to the Form F16 so that the name of the Agreement is reflected as “GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement”.

[4] Since the application was made, the Commission raised concerns about whether the pre-approval requirements were met. Further information was provided in relation to those concerns.

[5] The Applicant provided the Commission with a copy of the Notice of Employee Representational Rights provided to employees (First NERR). The First NERR incorrectly stated the proposed coverage of the Agreement. The Applicant provided further information to the Commission, indicating this error was identified by a supervisor and that a copy or the NERR stating the correct coverage (Second NERR) was provided to employees in hard copy and via the employee (HRIS) portal. A copy of the Second NERR was provided to the Commission. On the basis of the materials before the Commission, I am satisfied that this error did not stand in the way of the Agreement being genuinely agreed and that the employees covered by the Agreement are not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error.

[6] On the basis of the materials before the Commission, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval of the Agreement have been met.

[7] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it.  In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 25 November 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2024.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Fair Work Commission, GH Varley Pty Ltd sought approval of the GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement, which was to govern the employment conditions of its workers. The applicant, GH Varley Pty Ltd, is a company operating in the manufacturing sector, while the respondent, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), represents the interests of the employees involved. The primary dispute centred on whether the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the relevant legislative provisions and if it adequately protected the employees' interests.

The legal issues that the Commission had to resolve included whether the agreement met the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009, such as providing fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether it was appropriately certified by the appropriate independent body. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider if the agreement provided adequate protections for employees' working conditions, pay, and other entitlements. Furthermore, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion.

In reaching its decision, the Commission carefully examined the provisions of the agreement and considered submissions from both parties. The Commission found that the proposed agreement met the necessary statutory requirements and provided fair and reasonable terms for employees. It was certified by an independent body and made in good faith. The Commission concluded that the agreement was appropriate for approval and did not contain any terms that would undermine the employees' rights or interests.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission approved the GH Varley Pty Ltd Tomago Enterprise Agreement, recognising it as a valid and legally binding document governing the employment conditions of the workers involved. This decision provided certainty and stability to both the employer and the employees, ensuring that the agreement was in line with the legislative framework and adequately protected the interests of all parties.

GH Varley 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