Mako Security Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 2817

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mako Security Pty Ltd
(AG2013/941)

MAKO SECURITY PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2017

Electrical contracting industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 7 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Mako Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mako Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2017 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Mako Security Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 May 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 May 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mako Security Pty Ltd sought approval of the Mako Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The applicant, a company in the security services industry, and the respondents, a group of employees, were in dispute over the terms of the proposed agreement. The commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act, including whether there had been genuine bargaining between the parties, and whether the agreement contained the mandated minimum terms and conditions. Additionally, the commission needed to assess whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it met the criteria for being a "better off overall test."

The commission found that the applicant had not genuinely bargained with the respondents as it had failed to provide adequate information and had not engaged in meaningful discussions. The applicant's approach was deemed coercive and did not meet the standard of genuine bargaining required by the Act. The commission also found that while the agreement contained the mandated minimum terms and conditions, it did not meet the "better off overall test" as it did not provide employees with improved terms and conditions compared to their previous entitlements. Consequently, the commission refused to approve the agreement.

The commission's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and a detailed analysis of the legal framework governing enterprise agreements. The commission's refusal to approve the agreement highlights the importance of genuine bargaining and the need for employers to engage in meaningful discussions with their employees when developing enterprise agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established