HNZ Australia Pty Limited T/A HNZ Australia

Case [2017] FWCA 7018


[2017] FWCA 7018
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

HNZ Australia Pty Limited T/A HNZ Australia
(AG2017/6496)

HNZ BROOME GROUND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Airport operations

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET

PERTH, 22 DECEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the HNZ Broome Ground Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made by HNZ Australia Pty Limited T/A HNZ Australia (HNZ Australia) for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the HNZ Broome Ground Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] HNZ Australia operates a helicopter charger business providing helicopter services to clients operating across a range of industries.

[3] Negotiations for the Agreement commenced in early February 2017. A draft agreement was put to the ballot in May 2017 but was overwhelmingly rejected. In July 2017, the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) joined the negotiations.

[4] Between August and October 2017, ALAEA, the employee bargaining representatives and HNZ Australia met on numerous occasions in an effort to conclude an agreement using traditional positional negotiating techniques. This proved unsuccessful so, in October 2017, the negotiating parties decided to take a different approach and made a joint application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking its assistance to conclude an agreement using the powers under s.576(2)(aa) of the Act.

[5] Pursuant to this power, I provided training to the negotiating parties on interest based bargaining techniques and then facilitated negotiations between the parties utilising these techniques.

[6] Despite the previous protracted positional negotiations, a team of employee bargaining representatives, an official of the ALAEA and management representatives worked collaboratively and, utilising interest based bargaining techniques, within two sessions developed an agreement endorsed by all the negotiating parties.

[7] The outcome of these negotiations was presented to the workforce at a ‘Town Hall Meeting’ held on 24 November 2017. The workforce subsequently endorsed the Agreement at a ballot conducted in December 2017.

[8] I am hopeful that the spirit in which this agreement was reached, consistent with the goal of the New Approaches initiative, leads to more efficient resolution of workplace disputes and consequently a reduction in the need for matters to be referred to the FWC during the life of the Agreement.

[9] HNZ Australia 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.

[10] 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.

[11] The ALAEA, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[12] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 December 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 December 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE426740  PR599093>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
HNZ Australia Pty Limited T/A HNZ Australia [2017] FWCA 7018
Case
[2017] FWCA 7018
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, HNZ Australia Pty Limited T/A HNZ Australia sought approval for the HNZ Broome Ground Enterprise Agreement 2017. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary standards under the Fair Work Act 2009 for approval by the Commission. The matter required the Commission to examine the procedural fairness of the agreement-making process, as well as the substantive terms of the agreement itself.

The key legal issues for the Commission to decide were whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether the agreement-making process was procedurally fair, and whether the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were no worse off than the relevant award or applicable registered agreement. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement contained any unfair content, such as terms that would undermine the purpose of the Act.

The Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith, and the process followed was procedurally fair. The substantive terms of the agreement were also found to be no worse off than the relevant award. However, certain clauses were identified as potentially unfair. The Commission exercised its power to remove these clauses, ensuring the agreement complied with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement with the specified modifications.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.