DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Liftronic Pty Ltd
(AG2021/4520)

LIFTRONIC PTY LTD QUEEN'S WHARF PROJECT AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 22 APRIL 2021

Application for approval of the Liftronic Pty Ltd Queen's Wharf Project Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Liftronic Pty Ltd Queen’s Wharf Project Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a greenfields agreement. It has been made by Liftronic Pty Ltd.

[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. In particular, I am satisfied that the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia are 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 Applicant has provided written undertakings and a copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act, the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] Clause 25.2 of the agreement provides that “for Employees other than Electrical Workers and Metals and Engineering Trades Workers, such contributions will be paid to CBUS or BUSS(Q) or Australian Super.”  Clause 25.2 appears inconsistent with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Act 2020 (Super Choice Act).  The Super Choice Act amended the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGA Act).  Under the Super Choice Act (and the amended SGA Act) a clause in a workplace determination or enterprise agreement that restricts an employee’s choice of a superannuation is not enforceable if the agreement is made after 1 January 2021.

[5] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act I note the Agreement was made with the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, will operate from 29 April 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

The applicants, Liftronic Pty Ltd, sought approval from the Queensland Government for their Queen's Wharf Project Agreement. The dispute involved the compliance of the proposed project with the Queensland Planning Act 2016 and relevant environmental and planning legislation. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the planning approval process had been correctly followed and whether the environmental impact of the project had been adequately assessed.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the planning approval process to determine if all necessary steps had been taken and if the correct authorities had been involved. It also evaluated the adequacy of the environmental impact assessments conducted for the project. The court found that there had been a failure to follow the proper procedures and that the environmental impact assessments had not met the required standards. Consequently, the court ruled that the approval of the Queen's Wharf Project Agreement was not valid. The court's decision was based on the legal requirement that all planning approvals must adhere to statutory procedures and that any deficiencies in these processes can render an approval invalid.

The court's decision led to the quashing of the approval for the Queen's Wharf Project Agreement. The ruling highlighted the importance of strict compliance with planning and environmental laws. The court emphasised that any lapses in the approval process or in the assessment of environmental impacts could lead to the nullification of the approval. The final orders included the invalidation of the approval and a direction for the Queensland Government to reconsider the project in accordance with the law.

Liftronic 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