Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd - [2022] FWC 2232

[2022] FWC 2232

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2022/2067)

One HPE enterprise agreement 2022

Technical services
COMMISSIONER P RYAN	SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2022

Application for approval of the One HPE Enterprise Agreement 2022

Introduction and Background

Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd (Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the One HPE Enterprise Agreement 2022 (Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Agreement was made on 16 June 2022, with 196 of 405 employees casting a valid vote, and 130 of 196 employees voting to approve the Agreement.

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) was a bargaining representative for the Agreement and supports the approval of the Agreement.

In addition to the APESMA, there were 27 employee bargaining representatives for the Agreement.

Two of the employee bargaining representatives, Mr Matthew Brown and Mr Shane Seymour, filed a Form F18A objecting to the approval of the Agreement.

The grounds of objection set out in the Form F18A filed by Mr Brown related to the conduct of bargaining. The grounds of objection set out in the Form F18A filed by Mr Seymour related to claims made during bargaining and the Employer’s consideration of those claims.

The Employer was provided with a copy of the Form F18A’s and invited to provide a response.

Following the filing of the Employer’s response, Mr Seymour advised my chambers that he no longer pressed those matters.

Mr Brown filed further material in support of his objection to the approval of the Agreement.

The matter was then listed for conference on 3 August 2022, which was attended by the Employer, the APESMA, and 11 employee bargaining representatives, including Mr Brown and Mr Seymour.

The matter was unable to be resolved at the conference and each of the parties advised that they would like the matter determined on the materials before the Commission.

Objection by Matthew Brown

The ‘key issue’ of objection relied on by Mr Brown is that the Employer did not circulate a list of employee bargaining representatives or otherwise disclose the details of the other employee bargaining representatives, with the result that bargaining meetings were conducted ‘anonymously’.

Mr Brown also relied on the following grounds in objecting to the approval of the Agreement:

·The bargaining meetings were too short and were concluded abruptly at the end of the allocated time;
·The employer did not provide minutes of bargaining meetings or a consolidated list of claims raised by bargaining representatives; and
·The bargaining meetings, conducted by telephone, were unproductive as bargaining representatives were talking over each other and asking repetitive questions.

During the conference, Mr Sean Brunett, Mr David Coucke and Mr Andrew Pywell, each being an employee bargaining representative, supported the objection raised by Mr Brown.

Employer Response

The Employer submitted that at all times it complied with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2232
Case: [2022] FWC 2232
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd to approve a new enterprise agreement, the One HPE Enterprise Agreement 2022. The application followed a successful vote by the employees covered by the proposed agreement. The dispute centred on the terms and conditions of employment within the company, with a particular focus on the procedural fairness of the agreement's negotiation and the potential impact on employees' rights and conditions.

The key legal issues addressed by the Commission were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it met the statutory criteria for approval. The Commission examined the negotiation process to ensure it was free from coercion and involved genuine bargaining. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, taking into account the principles of procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the Commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and met the statutory criteria for approval. The Commission was satisfied that the negotiation process was free from coercion and involved genuine bargaining between the parties. The terms and conditions of the agreement were found to be fair and reasonable, providing for appropriate protections and benefits for employees. The Commission approved the One HPE Enterprise Agreement 2022, which will now apply to the employees covered by the agreement.

The final orders of the Commission were that the One HPE Enterprise Agreement 2022 be approved and registered under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement will commence on the date of the Commission's decision and will apply to the employees covered by the agreement. The Commission's approval ensures that the agreement will have legal effect and that the parties are bound by its terms.

Orders