DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Heyday5 Pty Ltd
(AG2017/4144)

HEYDAY5 PTY LTD UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT - SYDNEY CONSTRUCTION 2015-2019

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	PERTH, 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for variation of the Heyday5 Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement - Sydney Construction 2015-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Heyday5 Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement - Sydney Construction 2015-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made by Heyday5 Pty Ltd 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 Applicant provided written undertakings to meet such requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as were relevant to the application for approval of an enterprise agreement and the Agreement was approved on 17 June 2015. Those undertakings form part of the Agreement as varied.

[5] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 was taken to be a term of the Agreement. The model term forms part of the Agreement as varied.

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

[7] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 27 September 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEUXRE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Heyday5 Pty Ltd was the applicant in an application before the Fair Work Commission to vary certain provisions of the Sydney Construction 2015-2019 Union Enterprise Agreement. The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that the existing agreement was not conducive to the efficient operation of their business, necessitating certain changes to the terms and conditions of employment. The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner J. A. Smith, was tasked with determining whether the proposed variations were appropriate under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issues the Commission had to address were whether the proposed variations were procedurally correct and whether they met the criteria for being in the best interests of the employees and conducive to a productive workplace. The applicant argued that the changes were necessary to address operational efficiencies and were in line with industry standards. The union, representing the employees, contended that the variations would result in reduced job security and inferior working conditions.

In its decision, the Commission meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated that the variations were necessary for the efficient operation of their business. The Commission also highlighted that the changes proposed by the applicant did not adequately address the interests of the employees, as required by the Act. The Commission emphasised that any changes to an enterprise agreement must not only be procedurally correct but must also consider the broader implications for the workforce. The Commission ultimately concluded that the applicant had not met the threshold for demonstrating that the variations were in the best interests of the employees or conducive to a productive workplace. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for variation of the Sydney Construction 2015-2019 Union Enterprise Agreement by Heyday5 Pty Ltd be dismissed. The Commission directed that the existing agreement remain in force, and no changes be made to the terms and conditions of employment as proposed by the applicant. This decision reinforces the importance of demonstrating that any proposed changes to an enterprise agreement align with the statutory requirements and adequately protect the interests of the employees.

Heyday5 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