DECISION

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

McAlpine Hussmann Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10100)

MCALPINE HUSSMANN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 5 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the McAlpine Hussmann Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McAlpine Hussmann Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by McAlpine Hussmann Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The agreement does not contain a flexibility provision in the terms of s.202 of the Act. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] In my view, the Consultation provision in clause 22 of the Agreement is not a consultation term which meets the requirements of ss.205(1)(a)(ii) and (1A) of the Act, insofar as it does not include the terms concerning consultation about a change to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. These terms were introduced into the Act by Items 20 and 21 of Part 4 (Consultation about changes to rosters or working hours) of Schedule 1 (Family–friendly measures) of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act).Those amendments operate in relation to an enterprise agreement that is made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 on 1 January 2014 (See clause 5(2) of Item 1 of Schedule 7 (Application and transitional provisions) of the Amendment Act).

[4] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that if an “enterprise agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement”. The model consultation term is found in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

[5] As required by s.201(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, I note that the model consultation term is taken, under s.205(2), to be a term of the Agreement.

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

[7] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 12 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the recent case of McAlpine Hussmann Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving an enterprise agreement that had been negotiated between the employer and its employees. The dispute centred around whether the proposed agreement met the necessary legal standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, McAlpine Hussmann Pty Ltd, sought the Commission's approval for the McAlpine Hussmann Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017, which aimed to regulate various aspects of employment between the company and its workforce.

The legal issues before the Commission were primarily concerned with whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it contained all the required terms and conditions, was free from any unfair content, and had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. A secondary issue involved the process through which the agreement had been developed and the extent to which it was representative of the workforce's interests.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement was generally compliant with the Act. It included all the mandated terms and conditions, and after careful examination, did not contain any unfair provisions. The negotiation process was deemed genuine, with evidence presented that the agreement had been developed through meaningful consultation between the employer and the employees' representatives. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement fairly represented the interests of the workforce, and thus, it granted approval for the McAlpine Hussmann Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017. The decision underscored the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements and ensuring they were negotiated fairly and genuinely.

McAlpine Hussmann Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established