| [2018] FWCA 2126 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd T/A Huon Aquaculture
(AG2017/4497)
HUON AQUACULTURE - MARINE OPERATIONS (TASMANIA) AGREEMENT 2017
Tasmania | |
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC | MELBOURNE, 13 APRIL 2018 |
Application for approval of the Huon Aquaculture - Marine Operations (Tasmania) Agreement 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Huon Aquaculture - Marine Operations (Tasmania) Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd T/A Huon Aquaculture. 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.
[4] 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 13 April 2018 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 20 April 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE427993 PR601975>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd T/A Huon Aquaculture [2018] FWCA 2126
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 2126
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the agreement was consistent with the objectives of the Act, whether it would result in any adverse environmental impacts, and whether there were sufficient measures in place to mitigate any potential harm. The court had to consider the merits of the application, including the evidence provided by the applicants regarding the environmental management practices and the potential benefits of the aquaculture operations, as well as the submissions and evidence presented by the respondents highlighting the risks to the environment. The court also needed to assess whether the applicants had adequately demonstrated that the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Act.
In its decision, the court found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval under the Act. The court concluded that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of the aquaculture operations would be adequately managed and that the potential risks to the environment had been adequately assessed. The court emphasised that the Act requires a high standard of environmental protection, and that the applicants had not shown that the agreement would result in no significant harm to the environment. The court also noted that the applicants had not demonstrated that the agreement would result in a net environmental benefit, as required by the Act. As a result, the court refused to approve the agreement.
The Federal Court of Australia refused to approve the Huon Aquaculture – Marine Operations (Tasmania) Agreement 2017. The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The court concluded that the agreement did not adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the aquaculture operations and did not meet the required standard of environmental protection. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the agreement would result in a net environmental benefit.
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.