DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Heyday5 Pty Limited
(AG2020/3966)

HEYDAY5 PTY LTD & ETU SYDNEY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC	MELBOURNE, 2 FEBRUARY 2021

Application for variation of the Heyday5 Pty Ltd & ETU Sydney Construction Enterprise Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Heyday5 Pty Ltd & ETU Sydney Construction Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement). The application was made by Heyday5 Pty Limited pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 2 February 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent matter of Heyday5 Pty Limited, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was presented with an application for the variation of the Heyday5 Pty Ltd & ETU Sydney Construction Enterprise Agreement 2019. The applicant, Heyday5, sought amendments to the enterprise agreement to address specific concerns regarding employee classification and remuneration. The ETU Sydney, representing the employees, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes were not warranted and would negatively impact the workforce.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the proposed variations to the enterprise agreement met the necessary thresholds for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the changes were procedurally correct, whether they provided a net benefit to the employees, and if they aligned with the principles of good faith bargaining. The applicant argued that the variations were necessary to respond to changing business conditions and to ensure the agreement remained fair and effective. The union, on the other hand, contended that the proposed changes did not meet the statutory requirements and would undermine the existing protections afforded to the employees.

The Commission carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the specifics of the proposed variations. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Commission determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed changes met the necessary criteria for approval. The Commission found that the variations did not provide a net benefit to the employees and did not align with the principles of good faith bargaining. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any proposed variations to an enterprise agreement are thoroughly justified and meet the statutory requirements. The Commission's findings underscore the need for applicants to provide comprehensive evidence to support their applications and to consider the potential impact on employees when seeking changes to an existing agreement.

Heyday5 Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established