| [2025] FWCA 466 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Kinetic Fleet Services Pty Ltd
(AG2024/5294)
KINETIC FLEET SERVICES - MACKAY FLEET AGREEMENT 2024
| Manufacturing and associated industries | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON | BRISBANE, 5 FEBRUARY 2025 |
Application for approval of the Kinetic Fleet Services – Mackay Fleet Agreement 2024
This decision deals with an application made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kinetic Fleet Services – Mackay Fleet Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Kinetic Fleet Services Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) distributed to employees appears to have a different name for the Agreement to that which was eventually made. However, I am satisfied that the Agreement would have been genuinely agreed to but for the minor procedural departure from the prescribed form requirements of the NERR under s.174(1A) of the Act and that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by this. Accordingly, I exercise the discretion conferred by s.188(5) of the Act.[1]
Correspondence was sent to the Employer by my Chambers raising a concern about the loaded rates of pay apply to casuals. The Applicant advised that the engagement of casual employees on flat rates are not reasonably foreseeable and therefore on the basis of the types and patterns of work reasonably foreseeable, the BOOT could be satisfied. I am consequently satisfied that per s. 193A(6A) of the Act no detriment would be afforded to those lesser conditions on the basis of types and patterns of work that are reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of s.193A(6) of the Act and the better off overall test. I note that should this change that pursuant to s.227A of the Act, application may be made for the future reconsideration of whether the agreement passes the BOOT during the life of the Agreement.
The Applicant has provided written undertakings. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
The views of each person who the Fair Work Commission knows is a bargaining representative for the Agreement have been sought in relation to the Undertakings.
Pursuant to s.190(3) of the Act, I accept the undertakings.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, having regard to the Statement of Principles,[2] on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declarations, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
I observe that the following provisions are likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):
· Clause 6.3 – Maximum weekly hours.
· Clause 27.2 – Public Holidays.
However, noting clause 5 of the Agreement, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.
The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 February 2029.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others[2019] FWCFB 318 [117].
[2] Fair Work (Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement) Instrument 2023.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE527920 PR784041>
- AGLC
- Kinetic Fleet Services Pty Ltd [2025] FWCA 466
- Case
- [2025] FWCA 466
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms, whether it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and if the agreement was appropriately negotiated. The court had to scrutinise the proposed terms to determine if they were procedurally fair and substantively reasonable, taking into account the principles of good faith bargaining and the protection of employee rights. The court also considered submissions from both parties, as well as relevant precedents and statutory guidelines.
In its decision, the court examined the procedural fairness of the negotiation process and the substantive reasonableness of the proposed terms. The court found that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and that the terms proposed in the agreement were fair and reasonable. The court highlighted that the proposed wages, working hours, and leave provisions aligned with industry standards and provided adequate protections for the employees. The court concluded that the agreement was appropriately negotiated and met the requirements of the Fair Work Act.
The Fair Work Commission approved the Kinetic Fleet Services – Mackay Fleet Agreement 2024, subject to certain conditions. The court ordered that the agreement would come into effect on the specified date, provided that any necessary modifications were made to address any minor procedural concerns raised during the hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.