DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Jan De Nul (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2017/5942)

JAN DE NUL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Dredging industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 10 APRIL 2018

Application for variation of the Jan De Nul (Australia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Jan De Nul (Australia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made by Jan De Nul (Australia) Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. 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.

[4] 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.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Applicant provided written undertakings to meet such requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as were relevant to the application for approval of an enterprise agreement and the Agreement was approved on 23 December 2016. Those undertakings form part of the Agreement as varied.

[6] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[7] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 10 April 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission concerned a request by Jan De Nul (Australia) Pty Ltd to vary the Enterprise Agreement 2016 with its employees, specifically addressing the classification of certain roles within the company. The Fair Work Commission was the judicial body tasked with adjudicating on this matter. The applicant sought to reclassify certain employees from higher-paid positions to lower-paid positions, arguing that the current classification was no longer reflective of the duties and responsibilities of the roles.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes to the classification of roles would result in a simplification of the structure and whether such changes would be fair and reasonable. The Commission had to consider whether the proposed variations would be beneficial in terms of efficiency and whether they would maintain or improve the overall terms and conditions of the affected employees. The applicant argued that the changes were necessary to align the classification with the actual work performed, while the union representing the employees contended that the proposed changes would result in a detrimental impact on the employees' wages and conditions.

The Fair Work Commission, after considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, found that the proposed variations were not in the best interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the changes would not lead to a simplification of the classification structure and that there was no compelling evidence to support the assertion that the current classification did not reflect the actual work performed. Furthermore, the Commission held that the proposed changes would result in a reduction of the overall wages and conditions of the employees, which was not fair and reasonable. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for variation of the Enterprise Agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed in its entirety. The Commission found that the proposed changes to the classification of roles did not meet the criteria for a fair and reasonable variation and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the changes would be beneficial for the employees or the company. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees and found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the proposed changes.

Jan De Nul (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