DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Kempe Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2073)

KEMPE ENGINEERING SERVICES (KARRATHA) PTY LTD PILBARA AREA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 24 MARCH 2015

Application for variation of the Kempe Engineering Services (Karratha) Pty Ltd Pilbara Area Enterprise Agreement 2011.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Kempe Engineering Services (Karratha) Pty Ltd Pilbara Area Enterprise Agreement 2011 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Kempe Engineering Pty Ltd. A list of proposed changes is attached to this decision as Attachment A.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied under s.210 of the Act, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation made pursuant to s.210 of the Act operates from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by the employer, Kempe Engineering Services (Karratha) Pty Ltd, to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the Kempe Engineering Services (Karratha) Pilbara Area Enterprise Agreement 2011. The application was opposed by the union, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, acting on behalf of the employees. The primary dispute centred on the employer's proposal to implement a new work roster, which the union argued would negatively impact the employees' work-life balance and conditions.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed changes to the roster met the requirements for a permissible variation under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the changes were in the interests of the employees, given the potential impact on their work-life balance, and if the employer had followed the correct procedural steps in proposing the changes. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider whether the proposed changes complied with the relevant award provisions and whether the employer had adequately justified the need for the changes.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed roster changes were in the best interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the proposed changes would significantly alter the existing work patterns, leading to increased hours and reduced rest periods, which the union argued would adversely affect the employees' health and well-being. Furthermore, the Commission held that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the changes, particularly in terms of operational necessity or efficiency gains. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for variation of the enterprise agreement.

Kempe Engineering 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