DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Holcim (Australia) Pty Limited
(AG2016/281)

HOLCIM AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED MELBOURNE AGGREGATES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Quarrying industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 26 FEBRUARY 2016

Approval of the Holcim Australia Pty Limited Melbourne Aggregates Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Holcim Australia Pty Limited Melbourne Aggregates Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union, 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate from 4 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Holcim (Australia) Pty Limited and the Transport Workers Union of Australia, concerning the approval of the Holcim Australia Pty Limited Melbourne Aggregates Enterprise Agreement 2015. The dispute arose from the union's objections to certain terms and conditions within the proposed agreement, which they argued were not in the best interests of their members. The union's primary concern was related to the classification and remuneration of employees, as well as the provisions concerning shift patterns and rostering practices.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement, as presented, met the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement contained the necessary protections for employee interests and whether it was made in good faith. Additionally, the Commission considered the union's argument that the agreement failed to adequately protect employees' entitlements and whether it unfairly disadvantaged a section of employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not adequately address the union's concerns regarding employee classification and remuneration. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees' rights and protections were not compromised in the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the agreement did not sufficiently provide for the employees' interests in terms of shift patterns and rostering practices. Consequently, the Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and did not approve the enterprise agreement. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for further negotiation and amendment to address the identified issues.

Holcim (Australia) 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