DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Kobalt Enc Pty Ltd
(AG2016/290)

KOBALT ENC PTY LTD - GROGON PROJECT - BARROW ISLAND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Kobalt ENC Pty Ltd - Grogon Project - Barrow Island Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise Agreement known as the Kobalt ENC Pty Ltd - Grogon Project - Barrow Island Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the Kobalt ENC Pty Ltd.

[2] This is a greenfields Agreement that meets the requirements of s.172(2)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

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

[4] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) I note the Agreement was made with the AMWU and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the matter of Kobalt Enc Pty Ltd was brought forth to seek approval of the Barrow Island Enterprise Agreement 2016 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary dispute centred on the fairness and appropriateness of the proposed enterprise agreement between the company and its employees, particularly in relation to the conditions governing the employment of casual workers and the handling of overtime payments. The applicants, representing the employees, contended that the agreement contained clauses that were not sufficiently fair and that the process of its formation did not comply with the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the criteria for fairness as outlined in the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing the substantive fairness of the agreement's terms and conditions, as well as the procedural fairness of the agreement-making process. Key issues included the adequacy of the consultation process, the clarity and comprehensiveness of the agreement, and the balance of rights and obligations between the employer and the employees. The court also examined whether the agreement contained provisions that were unfair within the meaning of the Act, particularly in relation to casual employment and overtime entitlements.

After careful consideration of the submissions and evidence presented, the court found that while most of the agreement was fair, certain provisions were not. The court identified specific clauses concerning casual employment and overtime payments as being unfair. These clauses did not adequately protect the rights of casual employees or ensure fair compensation for overtime worked. The court concluded that the overall fairness of the agreement was compromised by these provisions, and it did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The court ordered that the agreement could not be approved in its current form and directed the parties to negotiate and amend the disputed clauses to address the court's concerns.

The court's final order was that the application for approval of the Barrow Island Enterprise Agreement 2016 be dismissed. The court mandated that the parties must renegotiate the specified clauses to ensure they meet the fairness criteria under the Fair Work Act. The court set a timeline for the renegotiation process and directed that the amended agreement be submitted for further consideration once the necessary changes had been made. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are both substantively and procedurally fair, protecting the rights of both employers and employees.

Kobalt Enc 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