DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Komatsu Australia Pty Limited T/A Komatsu Australia Pty Limited
(AG2017/477)

KOMATSU AUSTRALIA NEWCASTLE SERVICE DEPARTMENT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2017

Application for approval of the Komatsu Australia Newcastle Service Department Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Komatsu Australia Newcastle Service Department Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Komatsu Australia Pty Limited T/A Komatsu Australia Pty Limited. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 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.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 24 March 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 31 March 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2019.

COMMISSIONER ROE

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Komatsu Australia Pty Limited and its employees represented by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The dispute centred on the approval of the Komatsu Australia Newcastle Service Department Enterprise Agreement 2016. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian industrial relations tribunal.

The legal issues before the Commission involved determining whether the agreement met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to decide if the agreement provided for the minimum terms and conditions of employment as required by the Act, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The CFMEU argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain employment conditions, while Komatsu maintained that the agreement was fair and met all legal requirements.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. The Commission found that the agreement did not sufficiently address certain conditions of employment, such as the classification of employees and their entitlements. Additionally, the Commission concluded that the agreement was not made in good faith, as there was evidence of pressure exerted on employees to accept the terms. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The Commission noted that while the parties had engaged in negotiations, the outcome did not reflect a genuinely agreed set of terms.

The Fair Work Commission's decision not to approve the agreement highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet all statutory requirements and are genuinely negotiated. The court's findings underscored the need for transparency and fairness in the negotiation process, and the necessity for agreements to provide for the minimum terms and conditions as stipulated by the Fair Work Act.

Komatsu Australia Pty Limited T/A Komatsu Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established