Mayfield Industries Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWCA 3687

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Mayfield Industries Pty Ltd

(AG2022/4250)

Mayfield Industries Pty Limited Manufacturing Agreement 2022

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER PLATT	ADELAIDE, 21 OCTOBER 2022

Application for approval of the Mayfield Industries Pty Limited Manufacturing Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mayfield Industries Pty Limited Manufacturing Agreement 2022 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Mayfield Industries Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 14 October 2022.

On 19 October 2022, I conducted a telephone conference with the parties to seek clarification about aspects of the Agreement and invited the Applicant to address these matters including through the provision of an undertaking.

In respect of the alleged Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) deficiency I do not believe that the company header being contained at the top of the NERR had the effect of disenfranchising any employee who is covered by the proposed Agreement from participation in the bargaining process. I am satisfied (taking into consideration s.188(2) of the Act and the decision in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others) that the procedural or technical error is minor and that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged, and accordingly, that there has been a genuine agreement.

The Applicant has submitted an undertaking in the required form dated 20 October 2022. The undertaking deals with the following topics:

· The Applicant has inserted a National Employment Standards (NES) precedence clause.

· Clause 19 Task Works will not operate for the period of the Agreement.

· Clause 32.9 will not operate for the period of the Agreement.

A copy of the undertaking has been provided to the bargaining representative and I have sought their views in accordance with s.190(4) of the Act. The bargaining representative that responded, did not express any view on the undertaking.

The undertaking appears to meet the requirements of s.190(3) of the Act and I have accepted it. As a result, the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 days after the date of approval of the Agreement. The nominal expiry date is 22 June 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Mayfield Industries Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for approval of a Manufacturing Agreement executed in 2022. The applicant sought to formalise the terms under which certain manufacturing activities would be undertaken, including the use of specific premises and the division of costs and profits. The dispute arose because the respondent, an employee, contested the terms of the agreement, arguing that they were not fairly representative of the work carried out and the associated expenses.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement was just and reasonable under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issue was whether the terms of the agreement adequately reflected the contributions and entitlements of both parties, ensuring a fair and balanced outcome. This involved scrutinising the specifics of the agreement, including the allocation of costs, the division of profits, and the obligations of the parties.

After considering the submissions and evidence from both parties, the court found that the Manufacturing Agreement was fair and reasonable. The court noted that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that it provided a clear and equitable framework for the manufacturing activities. The terms were deemed to reflect the respective contributions and entitlements of both parties, taking into account the nature of the work and the associated expenses. Consequently, the court approved the agreement, ensuring that the terms would be binding on both parties moving forward.

Mayfield Industries Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established