Holmes Machine Operators Pty Ltd T/A Blacks Earthmoving

[2014] FWCA 4699

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Holmes Machine Operators Pty Ltd T/A Blacks Earthmoving
(AG2014/1720)

BLACKS EARTHMOVING ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 21 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Blacks Earthmoving Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Blacks Earthmoving Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is three and a half years from the date of this decision

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Holmes Machine Operators Pty Ltd trading as Blacks Earthmoving and the Australian Workers Union. The dispute centred on the application for the approval of the Blacks Earthmoving Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues that arose for determination by the Commission were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it provided for a streamlined enterprise bargaining process. The applicant argued that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and facilitated an efficient bargaining process. The Union contended that the agreement did not provide for genuine negotiation and contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the content of the agreement. It found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated and that the parties had made genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Commission also found that the agreement provided for a streamlined enterprise bargaining process that was consistent with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission approved the agreement, noting that it provided for a fair and efficient bargaining process that would benefit both the employer and employees. The Commission found that the agreement provided for a streamlined enterprise bargaining process that would facilitate efficient and effective bargaining in the future. The Union's objections were dismissed, and the agreement was approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established