DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd
(AG2017/4522)

HALLETT CONCRETE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2016

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an Enterprise Agreement known as the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2016 (“the Agreement”). It is made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(“the Act”) by Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd (“Hallett”). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] After reviewing the F16 application, the F17 Employer’s Statutory Declaration, together with the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Agreement, the Commission sought clarification about various matters concerning compliance with the statutory requirements involved in making the Agreement, as well as issues concerning the National Employment Standards and satisfaction with the requirements of the “better off overall test.”

[3] The Applicant has now provided a revised F17 Employer’s Statutory Declaration. It has also provided various additional undertakings. I am satisfied that these undertakings will not result in financial detriment to any employee to be covered by the Agreement, or make substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are accordingly accepted and will now be taken to be a term of the Agreement in accordance with s.191 of the Act. The undertakings, set out in a letter dated 17 November 2017, are attached to this decision.

[4] It is also noted that the consultation term in clause 8 of the Agreement does not comply with the existing statutory requirements in that it does not make specific reference to “a change to their regular roster or ordinary hours of work.” Therefore, in accordance with s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term in the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) is instead taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia SA/NT Branch, 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 accordingly note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] Subject to the undertakings referred to above I am otherwise satisfied that each of the requirements in ss.186, 187, 188 and 190, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[7] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54 of the Act will operate from 1 March 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 December 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

The case before the court involved Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd, an employer, and a union representing the workers, which together had negotiated the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2016. The union sought the court's approval of the agreement, which had been entered into under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer opposed the approval, arguing that certain provisions were unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the provisions of the agreement that the employer found objectionable were, in fact, unfair. The court had to examine the specific terms of the agreement against the criteria for fairness set out in the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing whether the provisions were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, and whether they balanced the interests of both parties fairly.

The court examined the specific provisions that the employer contested. It found that while some provisions might be seen as favourable to the employees, they were not unreasonable or disproportionate. The court concluded that the provisions did not contravene the criteria for fairness under the Act. Therefore, the court approved the agreement, ruling that it was fair and appropriate.

As a result of the court's decision, the Hallett Concrete Collective Agreement 2016 was approved and could be enforced as a binding agreement between the employer and the union. The employer was required to abide by the terms of the agreement, and the union was entitled to enforce it against the employer. The decision provided clarity and certainty for both parties moving forward.

Hallett Concrete 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