Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd T/A Kent Removals and Storage

[2014] FWCA 5131

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd T/A Kent Removals and Storage
(AG2014/6706)

KENT RELOCATION GROUP PTY LTD ADELAIDE SA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2016

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd T/A Kent Removals and Storage (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I was initially concerned with some aspects of the proposed Agreement and wrote to the company outlining those issues on 10 July 2014. On 25 July 2014 I received a signed undertaking in response to the queries from Kate Millar, Human Resources at the Applicant. This undertaking now forms part of the Agreement and is kept on the file. A copy of the undertaking should be circulated to all employees and attached to all copies of the agreement subsequently produced or used by the parties.

[3] The undertaking which now forms part of the Agreement is attached.

[4] I am satisfied that the effect of the undertaking is not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement; or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Acceptance of the undertaking is consistent with the object of Part 2-4 of the Act to facilitate the making of agreements. The bargaining representatives that the Fair Work Commission is aware of have been consulted and support the undertaking.

[5] 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer however taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[6] As the agreement does not contain a consultation term that meets the requirements of s.205(1) and 205(1A), pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 5 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd, trading as Kent Removals and Storage, and the Fair Work Commission, which is hearing an application for the approval of the Kent Relocation Group Pty Ltd Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2016. The primary dispute revolves around whether the agreement meets the legal standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining if the enterprise agreement was fair and if it contained the necessary provisions to be considered compliant.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, whether it included a mechanism for resolving disputes, and whether it contained provisions that were contrary to public policy. Another key issue was whether the agreement provided for the appropriate classification of employees and whether it met the requirements for being made by a majority of the employees in the relevant enterprise. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement unfairly disadvantaged any particular group of employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not provide for the appropriate classification of employees, which was a significant issue. The Commission noted that the classification of employees was crucial for ensuring that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms of employment. Additionally, the Commission found that the agreement did not include an adequate dispute resolution mechanism, which was a necessary component for resolving any future disputes. The Commission also determined that the agreement did not meet the requirements for being made by a majority of the employees, which was a fundamental aspect of the approval process.

The Commission ultimately decided that the application for approval of the agreement should be dismissed. The reasoning was that the agreement failed to meet several critical requirements under the Fair Work Act, including proper employee classification, a dispute resolution mechanism, and the necessary majority approval. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with the legal framework designed to protect the rights of employees and employers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established