DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

HLS iMarine Pty Ltd atf HLS iMarine Unit Trust T/A HLS iMarine Pty Ltd
(AG2016/7400)

ANDERSON POINT MARINE EMPLOYEE SERVICES AGREEMENT 2016

Stevedoring industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Application for approval of the Anderson Point Marine Employee Services Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Anderson Point Marine Employee Services Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by HLS iMarine Pty Ltd atf HLS iMarine Unit Trust T/A HLS iMarine Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement was approved on 22 February 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 1 March 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 22 February 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved HLS iMarine Pty Ltd, a marine engineering company, and the Maritime Union of Australia, which represented employees of the company. The dispute centred on an application by the company for the approval of a new enterprise agreement, the Anderson Point Marine Employee Services Agreement 2016. The company sought to make changes to its employees' working conditions, including shifts, overtime, and leave provisions, which were contested by the union.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. This involved examining whether the agreement covered all necessary terms and conditions, provided adequate protections for employees, and was genuinely negotiated between the parties. The union argued that the proposed changes would negatively impact employee welfare and working conditions, while the company maintained that the changes were necessary for its operational efficiency and financial viability.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not adequately address several key issues, such as the calculation of overtime, leave loading, and provisions for shift work. The Commission highlighted that the agreement failed to provide clear and comprehensive terms on these matters, which were critical to the employees' working conditions. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the agreement, stating that it did not meet the statutory requirements and was not in the best interests of the employees. The decision was based on the need for clearer and more protective terms to ensure fairness and compliance with employment standards.

The Commission's decision resulted in the rejection of the proposed agreement, with directions provided for further negotiations between the parties. The company was required to address the deficiencies identified by the Commission and submit a revised agreement for approval. The union was also directed to participate in good faith in the negotiations to reach a resolution that met the statutory requirements and adequately protected the employees' interests.

HLS iMarine Pty Ltd atf HLS iMarine Unit Trust T/A HLS iMarine 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