McDonnell Considine Digby

[2014] FWCA 2996

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

McDonnell Considine Digby
(AG2014/637)

MCDONNELL CONSIDINE DIGBY PTY LTD TRADING AS MCD HYDRAULICS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2018

Plumbing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 7 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the McDonnell Considine Digby Pty Ltd trading as MCD Hydraulics Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McDonnell Considine Digby Pty Ltd trading as MCD Hydraulics Enterprise Agreement 2014-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A). Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 14 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 14 May 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the employer, McDonnell Considine Digby Pty Ltd trading as MCD Hydraulics, for approval of their enterprise agreement for the period 2014 to 2018. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009 and required the Commission to determine whether the agreement met the legal criteria for registration. The Commission was tasked with examining the fairness and compliance of the agreement with relevant legislative provisions.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the agreement was made in good faith, and whether it contained the mandatory terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to assess whether the agreement was free from any unfair content, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining obligations. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider whether the agreement provided for the protection of employees' rights and entitlements, and whether it was consistent with the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement did not meet the necessary criteria for approval. The Commission identified several areas of concern, including the lack of provisions for certain employee entitlements, the absence of good faith bargaining, and the presence of terms that were considered unfair. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not adequately protect the rights and entitlements of employees, and as such, it could not be approved under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.

The Commission's decision was clear and unequivocal, providing a detailed analysis of the reasons for its determination. The employer was directed to make necessary amendments to the agreement to address the identified deficiencies. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are fair and comply with the legislative framework, highlighting the need for good faith bargaining and the protection of employee rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established