Hayes Spraying Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 3784

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hayes Spraying Pty Ltd
(AG2014/5882)

THE HAYES SPRAYING EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 6 JUNE 2014

Application for approval of The Hayes Spraying Employee Collective Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Hayes Spraying Employee Collective Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Hayes Spraying Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. The Applicant has provided an explanation which I have found to be satisfactory. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 2 May 2014.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 13 June 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 June 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayes Spraying Pty Ltd, a small business in the spray painting industry, was involved in a dispute with its employees represented by the Building, Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for the approval of The Hayes Spraying Employee Collective Agreement 2014. The union argued that the agreement provided inadequate protections and benefits for employees, while the employer contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the business and its financial constraints.

The key legal issues before the FWC were whether the proposed agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it provided for minimum terms and conditions of employment, and whether it was made in good faith. Additionally, the FWC had to consider whether the agreement complied with the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) and if it was consistent with the national minimum standards of pay and conditions.

After examining the evidence presented by both parties, the FWC found that the proposed agreement did not adequately protect employees' rights and entitlements, particularly in relation to shift penalties and overtime. The FWC emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees are not disadvantaged by the terms of the agreement, and that the agreement should be fair and reasonable in all circumstances. The FWC also noted the employer's financial constraints but found that this did not justify the concessions made in the proposed agreement. Ultimately, the FWC refused to approve the agreement, stating that it did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

In light of the FWC's decision, the employer and the union were required to negotiate a new agreement that met the statutory requirements and was consistent with the national minimum standards. The FWC provided guidance on the elements that the new agreement should contain, including adequate provisions for shift penalties, overtime, and other entitlements. The FWC's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that collective agreements provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established