DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Korvest Ltd
(AG2016/3131)

KORVEST LTD KILBURN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 6 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the Korvest Ltd Kilburn Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Korvest Ltd Kilburn 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 Korvest Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. 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.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 6 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Korvest Ltd recently came before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in an application to approve the Kilburn Enterprise Agreement 2016. Korvest Ltd, the applicant, sought to have the agreement, which was entered into between Korvest Ltd and the Building Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Union), recognised as a protected action agreement under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from the Union's contention that the agreement was not fairly and properly negotiated, which led to a challenge to its approval.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement had been fairly and properly negotiated. This required the Commission to consider the process by which the agreement was negotiated and whether it met the legislative requirements set out in section 233 of the Act. The Commission had to assess if there was evidence of good faith bargaining and whether the agreement reflected the terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties.

The Commission examined the negotiation process and found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the agreement was the result of good faith bargaining. The process included multiple meetings, the exchange of proposals, and a willingness by both parties to reach a consensus. The Commission concluded that the agreement was fairly and properly negotiated, as the evidence showed that both parties engaged in a genuine attempt to negotiate in good faith. Consequently, the Commission approved the Kilburn Enterprise Agreement 2016 as a protected action agreement.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the Kilburn Enterprise Agreement 2016 as a protected action agreement. This decision was made based on the finding that the agreement was the product of good faith negotiations between Korvest Ltd and the Union. The approval granted by the Commission ensured that the terms and conditions set out in the agreement could be enforced under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Korvest Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established