DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Marwan Dadoun
(AG2016/3773)

RESPONSE SECURITY PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Security services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the Response Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Response Security Pty Ltd 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 Marwan Dadoun. 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 application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[5] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 22 August 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Response Security Pty Ltd, sought approval of the Response Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016. The applicant argued the agreement was made under a certified agreement and had been fairly and genuinely negotiated. The respondent, United Voice, a trade union, argued the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval and should be rejected. The Federal Circuit Court heard the matter, with the key legal issues being whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it met the statutory requirements for approval.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the agreement was genuinely negotiated. This was evidenced by the extensive consultation and negotiation process, which included multiple meetings and the exchange of drafts and proposals. The court also found that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval, including the requirement that it provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements, finding that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including provisions for pay rates, working conditions, and dispute resolution.

The court approved the Response Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016, finding that it had been genuinely negotiated and met the statutory requirements for approval. The court found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and that it was in the best interests of the employees. The court noted that the agreement provided for a range of benefits, including pay rates, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The court also found that the applicant had demonstrated that it had taken steps to ensure that the agreement was fairly and genuinely negotiated.

The court approved the Response Security Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016, subject to certain modifications. The modifications related to the calculation of overtime rates and the provision of notice of termination. The court found that the modifications were necessary to ensure that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval and provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The court noted that the modifications did not significantly alter the overall terms and conditions of employment and were in the best interests of the employees.

Marwan Dadoun

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established