DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

I & L Rosin
(AG2018/1795)

I & L ROSIN AND EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018-2022

Australian Capital Territory
COMMISSIONER MCKINNON	MELBOURNE, 12 OCTOBER 2018

Application for approval of the I & L Rosin and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the I & L Rosin and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by I & L Rosin. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] Written undertakings have been given in accordance with s.190. 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 October 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 October 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

In the Fair Work Commission, I & L Rosin was the applicant, seeking approval of the I & L Rosin and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022. The applicant was an employer with employees covered by the agreement. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement was suitable for registration under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose because the applicant sought to have the agreement approved without a vote, on the basis that it was a greenfields agreement that had been negotiated in good faith, and was in the best interests of the employees.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement satisfied the criteria for approval as set out in section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. In particular, the Commission was required to consider whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The Commission noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of a vote by the employees, and that the agreement did not contain a provision for a vote. The Commission also noted that the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest, as they allowed for the payment of penalty rates for work done on public holidays.

The Commission held that the agreement did not meet the requirements for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the agreement had not been negotiated in good faith, as the applicant had not provided evidence of a vote by the employees. The Commission also found that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees, as it contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The Commission noted that the agreement allowed for the payment of penalty rates for work done on public holidays, which was not in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also found that the agreement did not contain a provision for a vote, which was a requirement for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Commission ordered that the application for approval of the I & L Rosin and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022 be refused. The Commission also ordered that the agreement be returned to the applicant, with directions for the applicant to provide evidence of a vote by the employees, and to amend the agreement to remove the provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The Commission noted that the applicant had the right to lodge a new application for approval of the agreement, once it had addressed the issues identified by the Commission.

I & L Rosin

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established