| [2016] FWCA 998 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
KQ Employment Pty Ltd
(AG2015/7117)
KQ EMPLOYMENT PTY LTD ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, 2015 - 2018
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 16 FEBRUARY 2016 |
Application for approval of the KQ Employment Pty Ltd Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, 2015 - 2018.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the KQ Employment Pty Ltd Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, 2015 – 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by KQ Employment Pty Ltd. 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.
[3] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and National Union of Workers being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 February 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE417838 PR577080>
- AGLC
- KQ Employment Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 998
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 998
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission involved assessing whether the proposed agreement was a "direct substitution" of the existing industrial award or if it provided terms and conditions that were at least as good as those contained in the award, thereby satisfying the BOOT. The Commission needed to determine if the proposed agreement offered employees a package of terms and conditions that were, on balance, better than those provided under the relevant industrial award. This required a detailed analysis of the EBA's provisions against the award and an evaluation of the overall impact on the employees' entitlements.
The Commission found that the proposed agreement was a direct substitution of the relevant industrial award, which necessitated a thorough examination of the BOOT. After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission concluded that the proposed EBA did not meet the BOOT as it failed to provide employees with terms and conditions that were at least as good as those under the award. The Commission noted that several aspects of the proposed agreement, including pay rates and penalty rates, did not offer employees a better-off outcome compared to the award. Consequently, the application for approval of the EBA was dismissed.
The Commission's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the proposed agreement's provisions and their comparison with the existing award. The dismissal of the application meant that the proposed EBA would not be registered, and the employees would continue to be covered by the industrial award. This outcome ensured that employees' entitlements and protections under the award were preserved, reflecting the Commission's commitment to upholding the principles of the Fair Work Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.