KAEFER Integrated Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 3032

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

KAEFER Integrated Services Pty Ltd
(AG2013/6392)

KAEFER INTEGRATED SERVICES PTY LTD CURTIS ISLAND LNG PROJECTS GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2013-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 22 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the KAEFER Integrated Services Pty Ltd Curtis Island LNG Projects Greenfields Agreement 2013-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the KAEFER Integrated Services Pty Ltd Curtis Island LNG Projects Greenfields Agreement 2013-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172 (2) (b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kaefer Integrated Services Pty Ltd sought approval from the Fair Work Commission for the Kaefer Integrated Services Pty Ltd Curtis Island LNG Projects Greenfields Agreement 2013-2015. The Australian Workers' Union opposed the application, arguing the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President S. J. Griffin presiding.

The primary legal issue was whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, considering the terms and conditions, and the impact on employees' rights and protections. The opposition from the union highlighted concerns about the agreement's provisions on wages, working conditions, and employee rights. The court needed to assess the balance between the interests of the employer and the rights of the employees.

The Deputy President found that the agreement did not sufficiently protect the employees' rights and interests. The analysis focused on specific provisions that the union had challenged, particularly those relating to wages and working conditions. The Deputy President concluded that the agreement failed to provide adequate protections and benefits to the employees, thereby not being in their best interests. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The court ordered that the agreement be set aside and not be registered, ensuring the employees' rights and protections were upheld.

KAEFER Integrated Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established