DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

James Hardie Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2017/2805)

JAMES HARDIE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ROSEHILL PRODUCTION & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 15 AUGUST 2017

Application for approval of the James Hardie Australia Pty Limited Rosehill Production & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the James Hardie Australia Pty Limited Rosehill Production & Distribution Enterprise 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 James Hardie Australia 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, 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] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The United Voice 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 August 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Hardie Australia Pty Ltd sought approval of the Rosehill Production & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment for workers at the Rosehill production and distribution facility, including issues such as wages, hours of work, leave entitlements, and other employment-related matters. The company argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the union representing the employees contested several aspects, claiming they were not sufficiently beneficial to the workers.

The court needed to determine whether the agreement met the legal criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. This required considering whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, whether it was made in good faith, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the Act. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the agreement adequately addressed the needs and interests of the employees, particularly in light of the union's objections.

After reviewing the submissions and evidence presented by both parties, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement generally met the criteria for approval. The court considered the terms of the agreement in detail, examining how they addressed the various employment issues at stake. While acknowledging some concerns raised by the union, the court concluded that the agreement was fair and reasonable overall. The procedural requirements were also found to have been met, and the agreement was deemed to have been made in good faith.

The court approved the Rosehill Production & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2017, subject to certain conditions and clarifications to address specific concerns raised during the hearing. The union's objections were largely addressed through these conditions, ensuring that the agreement would be implemented in a manner that was fair and beneficial to the employees.

James Hardie Australia 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