| [2015] FWCA 168 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Hurstbridge Bus & Coach Pty Ltd t/as Panorama Coaches
(AG2014/10876)
HURSTBRIDGE BUS AND COACH PTY LTD T/A PANORAMA COACHES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014
Passenger vehicle transport (non rail) industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS | SYDNEY, 13 JANUARY 2015 |
Application for approval of the Hurstbridge Bus and Coach Pty Ltd t/a Panorama Coaches Enterprise Agreement 2014.
[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Hurstbridge Bus & Coach Pty Ltd t/as Panorama Coaches (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Hurstbridge Bus and Coach Pty Ltd t/a Panorama Coaches Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the ‘Union’) and three nominated Employee Bargaining Representatives. The Agreement is to cover 59 employees who are employed as Bus Drivers, Conductors, Ticket Sellers, School Bus Supervisors, Cleaners, Greasers and Bowser Attendants based in Diamond Creek, Victoria. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.
[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 10 June 2014 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on between 28 November and 1 December 2014. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, 37 of the 46 employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 17 December 2014. While I note that this is outside the statutory time limit contemplated by s 185(3)(a) of the Act, I consider it fair, in all the circumstances, to extend the date for lodgement to 17 December 2014.
[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17), Mr J Griffiths identified the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award 2010 [MA000063] and the Transport Workers (Passenger Vehicles) Award 2002 [AP838060] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Griffithssaid that the Agreement does provide for one term that is less beneficial than under the reference instruments, in that the Agreement provides for voluntary overtime at a flat hourly rate. However, the Agreement provides for a number of terms and conditions that are more beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including a significantly higher base rate of pay and the provision of a continuous service grant. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 24 and 25 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 12 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.
[4] At a hearing of the application on 7 January 2015, Mr R Lambert, Solicitorappeared with Mr J Griffiths for the applicant. Mr Lambert outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that the Agreement was similar to a number of other industry agreements recently approved by the Commission. Wage rates are to be increased on 1 January and 1 July during the nominal term of the Agreement by reference to percentage changes between average weekly earnings in the preceding May to November and November to May, respectively. The increase due on 1 January 2015 had already been paid to the employees. The Union did not appear, but had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement.
[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Hurstbridge Bus and Coach Pty Ltd t/a Panorama Coaches Enterprise Agreement 2014.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 14 January 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 31 March 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE412131 PR559831>
- AGLC
- Hurstbridge Bus & Coach Pty Ltd t/as Panorama Coaches [2015] FWCA 168
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission involved the procedural and substantive validity of the Enterprise Agreement. Procedurally, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement was appropriately certified and whether the necessary procedural steps were followed. Substantively, the Commission examined if the agreement met the requirements under the Fair Work Act, including whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees.
In rendering its decision, the Commission first confirmed the procedural validity of the agreement, noting that it was certified by the ABCC, which was a requirement under the Act. The Commission then considered the substantive aspects, evaluating whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The Commission found that the agreement did not unfairly disadvantage the employees and provided for reasonable terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, finding it to be in compliance with the statutory requirements.
The Fair Work Commission approved the Hurstbridge Bus & Coach Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014, determining that it met the legal requirements under the Fair Work Act. The agreement was deemed to be appropriately certified and provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. This decision effectively resolves the application and establishes the terms and conditions of employment for the drivers under the approved agreement.
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.