John e. Slee Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 6014

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

John e. Slee Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. and the Employees of John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. Agreement Number 1. 2014 ---2018; not approved

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. and the Employees of John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. Agreement Number 1. 2014 ---2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by John e. Slee Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] A hearing was conducted in this matter on 19 August 2014, where I raised with the Applicant a number of concerns I had with the application for approval of the Agreement. One of the concerns raised was the form of the Notice of Employee Representational Rights that was distributed to the employees of John e. Slee (Annexure A).

[3] The Notice of Employee Representational Rights distributed to employees does not comply with the requirements of s. 174(1A) of the Act as it is not in the form prescribed by Schedule 2.1 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

[4] Recently in Peabody Moorvale v CFMEU[2014] FWCFB 2042, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission said at paragraphs [46] - [47]:

“In our view s 174(1A) is clear and unambiguous. There is simply no capacity to depart from the form and content of the notice template provided in the Regulations. A failure to comply with these provisions goes to invalidity. We agree with the Minister's submissions on this point, that is:

A mandatory template is provided in the Regulations. The provisions make it clear that there is not scope to modify either the content or the form of the Notice other than as set out in the template.

Taking into account the considerations identified in Project Blue Sky we have concluded that the legislative purpose of s 174(1A) is to invalidate any Notice which modifies either the content or form of the Notice template provided in Sch 2.1 of the Regulations. We now turn to the facts of this case to determine whether the Notice given by Peabody complies with Sch 2.1”.(Footnotes omitted)

[5] I am not satisfied that the requirements of s. 174(1A) of the Act were met. It is apparent that the notice provided is not consistent with the requirements of s. 174(1A)(a) and (c). The requirements of s. 173 and s. 181(2) have therefore not been met. As consequence I am not satisfied that the employees have genuinely agreed to the Agreement as required by s. 188(a)(ii).

[6] For the above reasons I cannot approve the Agreement. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for the approval of a workplace agreement between John e. Slee Pty Ltd and its employees, as stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which holds the authority to approve workplace agreements that are not covered by an existing modern award or enterprise agreement. The application pertained to the John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. and the Employees of John e. Slee Pty. Ltd. Agreement Number 1, 2014-2018.

The primary legal issues the FWC had to address were whether the agreement met the criteria for approval as set out in the Fair Work Act. This involved examining whether the agreement provided for fair terms and conditions, including minimum rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions that were not less favourable than the relevant modern award or enterprise agreement. Additionally, the FWC had to consider whether the agreement allowed for a fair process for resolving disputes and provided for fair treatment of employees, including provisions for termination and redundancy.

In its decision, the FWC found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval. The commission identified several provisions that it considered to be less favourable than the relevant modern award, particularly in relation to overtime entitlements and penalty rates. The FWC also noted that the agreement did not adequately address dispute resolution mechanisms and did not provide sufficient protection for employees in terms of redundancy entitlements. Consequently, the FWC decided not to approve the agreement. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements are fair and do not disadvantage employees, aligning with the objectives of the Fair Work Act.

John e. Slee Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established