Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 7303

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6988)

KOMATSU AUSTRALIA PTY LTD NORTHERN TERRITORY OPERATIONS DIVISION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Northern Territory
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 16 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd Northern Territory Operations Division Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd Northern Territory Operations Division Enterprise Agreement 2014 (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 Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The consultation term in the Agreement does not include the mandatory requirements of s.205 of the Act that the employer consult employees about a change to their regular roster or ordinary hours of work, and

provides information to the employees about the change; and

invites the employees to give their views about the impact of the change (including any impact in relation to their family or caring responsibilities); and

considers any views given by the employees about the impact of the change; and

allows for the representation of those employees for the purposes of that consultation.

Consequently pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 1 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is to be read together with the undertaking given by the employer in Schedule A attached. The undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. The Commission has sought the view of the only employee bargaining representative of which it is aware regarding the undertaking but has been advised that the employee bargaining representative Mr Gill has left the organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 October 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER

SCHEDULE A

1 Section 2.09 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicants, the National Union of Workers and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, sought approval of an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement pertained to employees of Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd, who are involved in the mining and manufacturing industries within the Northern Territory. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval, including whether it provided for appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly those relating to the approval of enterprise agreements. The court needed to determine whether the provisions of the agreement met the criteria set out in the Act, including whether it provided for a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes between employees and employers. Additionally, the court examined whether the agreement contained all the mandated terms and conditions, including minimum rates of pay, maximum hours of work, and other employment-related provisions.

The court found that the agreement substantially complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It concluded that the dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in the agreement were appropriate and efficient, meeting the statutory standards. The court also found that the agreement contained all the mandated terms and conditions, including minimum pay rates and maximum working hours. Therefore, the application for approval was successful, and the agreement was approved by the court. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions and their alignment with the statutory framework.

Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established