DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Kalmar Equipment (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2015/53)

KALMAR EQUIPMENT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD PORT BOTANY FACILITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2017

Stevedoring industry
COMMISSIONER CRIBB	MELBOURNE, 16 APRIL 2015

Application for approval of the Kalmar Equipment (Australia) Pty Ltd Port Botany Facility Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kalmar Equipment (Australia) Pty Ltd Port Botany Facility Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Kalmar Equipment (Australia) Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved in Chambers on 16 April 2015 and, in accordance with 54 of the Act, will operate from 12 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Kalmar Equipment (Australia) Pty Ltd involved an application by the employer, Kalmar Equipment, for approval of an enterprise agreement between the company and its employees at the Port Botany facility. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, which argued that the proposed agreement did not meet the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees and whether it complied with the statutory criteria set out in the Act.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement adequately covered all the mandatory terms specified under the Fair Work Act, and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment. The union argued that the agreement failed to adequately cover certain terms and conditions of employment and did not meet the threshold for fair and reasonable terms, particularly in relation to redundancy entitlements. The employer contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable and fully compliant with the Act, as it provided for terms and conditions that were at least as good as those in the applicable award or registered agreement.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement was not compliant with the Fair Work Act. It did not adequately cover some of the mandatory terms, particularly those relating to redundancy entitlements. The Commission also determined that the agreement did not provide for fair and reasonable terms, as the redundancy provisions were not as favourable as those in the applicable award or registered agreement. As a result, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed. The Commission's decision was based on the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act, which requires that enterprise agreements provide for fair and reasonable terms and adequately cover the mandatory terms.

Kalmar Equipment (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