DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Main People Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6270)

MAIN PEOPLE PTY LTD AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 24 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Main People Pty Ltd Agreement 2014.

[1] The Main People Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement), the Agreement, the subject of this application for approval was made on 29 May 2014. An application for approval of the Agreement was lodged by Main People Pty Ltd (Main People) in the Fair Work Commission on the same day. The statutory declaration accompanying that application disclosed that as of that date, Main People only employed three people on a casual basis who were covered by the Agreement. Two of these were trades assistants and one was a boilermaker. They were employed at Karratha in Western Australia. None of these three remained employed by Main People.

[2] The application for approval of the Agreement is opposed by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU).

[3] The application has a long history which was set out in a decision of a Full Bench of this Commission in Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union v Main People Pty Ltd 1 and is not repeated here. The result in the aforementioned decision was that the appeal brought by the CEPU and the AMWU was upheld and the decision approving the Agreement was quashed. In so doing the Full Bench observed:

‘[41] It will be necessary for Main People’s application for approval of the Agreement to be re-determined. Pursuant to s.607(3)(c)(ii) of the FW Act, we will refer the matter to a member of this Full Bench for this purpose on the basis that the Agreement may be approved if a re-formulated undertaking is proffered which:

(1) does not purport to change the coverage of the Agreement;

(2) retains paragraphs 4 and 5 of the existing undertaking;

(3) requires the employer to identify, with respect to each employee engaged who is covered by the Agreement, which modern award would apply to the employee’s employment if the Agreement did not apply (the relevant award);

(4) requires the employer to pay to each employee, within each pay cycle, a total amount which is a specified and not nominal monetary amount more than the amount of pay the employee would have received if paid under the relevant award for the work performed in that pay cycle; and

(5) provide the employee, each pay cycle, with a reconciliation which identifies how the payment amount in (4) was calculated.

[42] The member to whom the matter is referred may in addition consider whether there needs to be any additional requirements contained in the undertaking in order to make it capable of acceptance under s.190(2). It will of course be necessary under s.190(4) to seek the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Main People Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Main People Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 8917
Case: [2015] FWCA 8917
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission was an application by Main People Pty Ltd for approval of the Main People Pty Ltd Agreement 2014. The dispute centred around the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement, specifically the classification of employees within the organisation. The application was brought under the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs the establishment and approval of enterprise agreements in Australia. The nature of the dispute was to ascertain whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, and if it complied with the statutory requirements for approval.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement correctly classified employees according to their roles, and whether the agreement provided for adequate consultation and disclosure. Additionally, the Commission had to determine if the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy, and if it provided for appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. The primary focus was on the procedural fairness in the bargaining process and the substantive fairness of the agreement's terms.

In its reasoning, the Commission found that the proposed agreement had been negotiated in good faith and with adequate consultation. The classification of employees was deemed fair and reasonable, taking into account the roles and responsibilities within the organisation. The Commission also noted that the agreement contained appropriate provisions for dispute resolution and did not contravene public policy. The Commission concluded that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval and was fair and reasonable in all respects.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission approved the Main People Pty Ltd Agreement 2014. The decision was made on the basis that the agreement was negotiated fairly, the classification of employees was appropriate, and it provided for adequate dispute resolution mechanisms. The agreement was deemed to be compliant with all statutory requirements and was found to be fair and reasonable.

Orders