DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Maclab Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6627)

MACLAB SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Asphalt industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 17 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Maclab Services Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Maclab Services 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 Maclab services Pty 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, 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 24 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 16 November 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maclab Services Pty Ltd was the applicant before the Fair Work Commission, seeking approval of the Maclab Services Enterprise Agreement 2016. The respondent, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, opposed the application. The dispute centred on the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement, which aimed to regulate the employment conditions of workers within the company. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues were whether the agreement provided for the minimum entitlements as stipulated by the Act and whether it had been made in good faith and without coercion. The respondent argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employee entitlements and had been forced upon the workforce without genuine negotiation. The applicant contended that the agreement was fair and reasonable, providing appropriate conditions and reflecting the genuine bargaining efforts between the parties.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not adequately safeguard employee entitlements in several respects. Notably, the agreement did not provide for minimum wage rates as required by the Act and failed to ensure adequate rest breaks. The Commission also found that the agreement was not made in good faith due to the lack of meaningful negotiations and the imposition of terms by the applicant. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission ordered that the agreement be reconsidered to address the deficiencies identified in the decision.

Maclab Services 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