Kirfield Pty Ltd T/A Kirfield Summary

[2014] FWCA 2909

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Kirfield Pty Ltd T/A Kirfield
(AG2014/5661)

KIRFIELD PTY LTD (HUNTER & CENTRAL NORTH NSW REGIONS) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 2 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Kirfield Pty Ltd (Hunter & Central North NSW Regions) Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kirfield Pty Ltd (Hunter & Central North NSW Regions) Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A). Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 9 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Kirfield Pty Ltd, trading as Kirfield, sought approval of the Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicants were a group of employees who contested the agreement, arguing it did not meet the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by Commissioner J.M. Williams.

The legal issues before the Commission revolved around whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, whether it contained the necessary safety net terms, and if it adhered to procedural fairness. Specifically, the employees argued that the agreement did not properly reflect the outcome of genuine negotiations and that certain terms were not consistent with the safety net provisions of the Act. The Commission also needed to consider if the process of developing the agreement was fair and appropriate.

Commissioner Williams determined that the agreement was genuinely negotiated, contained the requisite safety net terms, and was procedurally fair. The Commissioner found that the applicants had not discharged the onus of proof to demonstrate that the agreement failed to meet the statutory requirements. The employees' contentions that the agreement did not reflect genuine negotiations and did not adhere to the safety net provisions were dismissed. The procedural fairness of the agreement's development was upheld, as the employees had not provided sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

Accordingly, the Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2013, dismissing the application by the employees. The agreement was deemed to be valid and enforceable, with no further objections from the Commission on the grounds raised by the employees.

Kirfield Pty Ltd T/A Kirfield

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established