Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd Trading AS Gilbarco Veeder-Root

[2025] FWCA 2589

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd Trading AS Gilbarco Veeder-Root

(AG2025/2272)

GILBARCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD - HEAD OFFICE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER WALKADEN	SYDNEY, 4 AUGUST 2025

Application for approval of the Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd - Head Office Enterprise Agreement 2025

This decision concerns an application for approval of the Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd – Head Office Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The application has been made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) by Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd t/a Gilbarco Veeder-Root (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission must approve the Agreement if the requirements in sections 186 and 187 of the FW Act are met.

Section 186(2)(c) of the FW Act requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that the terms of the Agreement do not contravene section 55 of the FW Act. In considering the application, I raised two concerns with the Applicant, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and the other bargaining representatives. The first concern was in relation to clause 63.6 of the Agreement. Clause 63.6 provides for the withholding of monies on termination of employment. The concern being where an employee does not give the required notice, the clause appears to permit the employer to withhold monies, including National Employment Standards (NES) entitlements. The second concern was in relation to clause 49 of the Agreement. Clause 49 of the Agreement is entitled unauthorised absences. The concern being that where an employee is absent from work without approval, other benefits provided under the Agreement will cease to be available until duty is resumed or leave is approved. The concern being that may be inconsistent with NES. I sought confirmation as to whether the Applicant intended to rely upon clause 5.3 of the Agreement, which can be best described as a NES precedence clause, to resolve any such concern or propose an undertaking. The Applicant confirmed that it intends to rely upon clause 5.3 of the Agreement. Based upon that confirmation from the Applicant, the requirement in section 186(2)(c) is satisfied.
Based on the material provided by the Applicant, the AMWU, the AWU and the other bargaining representatives, each of the other requirements of the FW Act that are relevant to this Agreement are satisfied.

Section 201 of the FW Act requires the approval decision to note certain matters. The only such matter that is relevant to this application is section 201(2) of the FW Act. Both the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) which were bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given the Fair Work Commission a notice under section 183(1) of the FW Act that each of those employee organisations wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with section 201(2) of the FW Act, I note that the Agreement covers the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and The Australian Workers’ Union.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with section 54 of the FW Act, it will operate from 11 August 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2028.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Gilbarco Veeder-Root, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The dispute centred around the application for approval of the Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd - Head Office Enterprise Agreement 2025. The company sought to implement a new enterprise agreement which included changes to wages, conditions, and other employment terms.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the proposed enterprise agreement met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it was fairly negotiated, contained genuine agreement, and provided for minimum terms and conditions. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the agreement would result in a fair and reasonable outcome for both the employer and employees, and whether it was in the best interest of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement was fairly negotiated and reflected genuine agreement. The court examined the evidence presented and concluded that the proposed terms and conditions were fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the work, the roles of the employees, and the broader economic context. The agreement was also found to provide for minimum terms and conditions as required by law, and the court was satisfied that the agreement was in the best interest of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Gilbarco Australia Pty Ltd - Head Office Enterprise Agreement 2025, effective from the date of the decision. This decision sets a precedent for future enterprise agreements within the company and industry, providing a framework for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established