GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 6780

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1967)

GLAXOSMITHKLINE (BORONIA) AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014

Pharmaceutical industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

GlaxoSmithKline (Boronia) and National Union of Workers Collective Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the GlaxoSmithKline (Boronia) and National Union of Workers Collective 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 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The National Union of Workers 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 25 September 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 2 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers [2020] FWC 7537. The case involved GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd, the employer, and the National Union of Workers, representing employees at the Boronia site. The dispute centered around the interpretation and application of the GlaxoSmithKline (Boronia) and National Union of Workers Collective Agreement 2014. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether certain dismissals of employees were unfair and, if so, whether any remedies should be ordered.

The primary legal issues for the Commission to decide were whether the dismissals of the employees were harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as defined under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether the dismissals were unjust. The employer argued that the dismissals were justified under the collective agreement, while the union contended that the dismissals were unfair and should be remedied. The court had to assess the procedural fairness of the dismissals and the reasonableness of the employer's actions in light of the agreement.

The Commission found that the employer had not adequately followed the procedural requirements set out in the collective agreement when dismissing the employees. Consequently, the dismissals were deemed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission further determined that the dismissals were unjust, as the employer's actions did not align with the principles of procedural fairness. The Commission ordered the employer to reinstate the employees and provide them with compensation for the loss of wages and other benefits.

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established