Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 3546

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1201)

MAERSK DRILLING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD NAN HAI VI ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Oil and gas industry
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN	PERTH, 3 JUNE 2014

Application for approval of the Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd Nan Hai VI Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 23 May 2014, Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd made application for approval of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd Nan Hai VI Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The Agreement was made following a ballot on 16 May 2014.

[3] The Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section, s.187 and s.188 are met.

[4] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186, 187 and 188, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and will, in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act, operate from 10 June 2014.

[6] The nominal expiry date of this Agreement is 15 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Maersk Drilling Australia Pty Ltd, applied for approval of the Nan Hai VI Enterprise Agreement 2014 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from negotiations between the company and its employees, represented by the Maritime Union of Australia. The applicants sought to have the agreement, which had been certified by the Fair Work Commission as a simple greenfield agreement, approved by the Federal Circuit Court. The legal issues before the court involved the validity of the agreement and whether it met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act, including ensuring it provided for minimum entitlements, did not discriminate, and was free from any other illegality.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the terms of the agreement. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable and provided for minimum entitlements as required by the Act. The union, on the other hand, contended that the agreement did not adequately address certain issues such as the classification of employees and the terms of any potential redundancies. The court found that the agreement did not specify the classifications of employees, which was a critical term, and that this omission was a significant defect. The court also noted that the agreement did not adequately address the issue of redundancy, which was a matter of concern for the union.

After careful consideration of the arguments and the terms of the agreement, the court concluded that the agreement could not be approved as it contained significant defects and failed to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court noted that the agreement did not specify the classifications of employees, which was a critical term, and that this omission was a significant defect. The court also found that the agreement did not adequately address the issue of redundancy, which was a matter of concern for the union. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet the legal requirements and adequately address the concerns of all parties involved.

Maersk Drilling 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