John Goss Projects Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 400

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

John Goss Projects Pty Ltd
(AG2012/14374)

JOHN GOSS PROJECTS PTY LTD (SOUTHERN REGION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012-2016

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 29 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the John Goss Projects Pty Ltd (Southern Region) Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the John Goss Projects Pty Ltd (Southern Region) Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by John Goss Projects Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 5 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 January 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Goss Projects Pty Ltd sought approval of an enterprise agreement that had been negotiated with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The applicant company was represented by Mr. A. D. Smith, and the union by Mr. A. E. Brown. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President J. R. Taylor. The central issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether the process for negotiating the agreement was genuine. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the union contended that certain terms were not adequately addressed.

The Commission began by examining the process through which the agreement was negotiated. It considered the evidence provided by both parties and the compliance with the procedural fairness requirements. The Commission found that the negotiation process was genuine, with both parties acting in good faith and making reasonable efforts to reach an agreement. Regarding the substantive terms, the Commission assessed each provision of the agreement against the criteria of fairness and reasonableness. It noted that some provisions were contentious, particularly those relating to wages and conditions for certain employees. However, after careful consideration and weighing the interests of all parties, the Commission concluded that the overall terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable.

In reaching its decision, the Commission emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of both employers and employees in enterprise agreements. It acknowledged the need for flexibility and compromise in industrial relations, while also ensuring that employees are not disadvantaged. The Commission found that the agreement, while not perfect, achieved a fair balance between the parties' interests. Consequently, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement, subject to certain minor modifications to address specific concerns raised during the hearing. The final orders included the approval of the agreement with the noted modifications, effective from the date of the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established