DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Innofield Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/530)

INNOFIELD SERVICES PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 23 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Innofield Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Innofield Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Innofield Services Pty Ltd. 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, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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 was approved on 23 March 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 March 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Innofield Services Pty Ltd, sought approval of the Innofield Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016, which was made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The respondents, represented by the Transport Workers Union, opposed the application. The nature of the dispute centred around various provisions within the agreement that the respondents claimed were unfair or did not meet the standards set by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether certain provisions of the enterprise agreement unfairly disadvantaged employees or contravened the Fair Work Act. These provisions included changes to shift patterns, the imposition of new work rules, and adjustments to employee entitlements. The court was required to assess whether these changes were procedurally fair and whether they provided an appropriate balance of rights and obligations for both employers and employees.

The court examined the fairness of the provisions by considering the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness as outlined in the Fair Work Act. The applicants argued that the provisions were necessary for business efficiency and were made in good faith. The court found that while the applicants had made a genuine effort to bargain, certain provisions did not adequately protect employee rights or provide a fair outcome. Specifically, the changes to shift patterns and work rules were deemed to place an undue burden on employees without sufficient justification. Consequently, the court did not approve the contested provisions and directed further negotiations between the parties.

Innofield Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established