DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire
(AG2017/1026)

MCKAY’S WATERCART AND SWEEPER HIRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 21 APRIL 2017

Application for approval of the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 21 April 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 April 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case, Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was called upon to consider the approval of the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2017. The dispute arose as the employer sought to have this new enterprise agreement recognised and enforced. The Fair Work Commission had to navigate the nuances of the Fair Work Act 2009 and determine whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and balanced, while the union representing the employees raised several objections, primarily focusing on the provisions concerning working conditions and pay rates.

The primary legal issues before the FWC were whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it contained terms that were fair and reasonable. The union contended that certain clauses did not provide adequate protections and were not reflective of the true bargaining power between the parties. The FWC had to scrutinise the negotiation process, the contents of the agreement, and the extent to which it complied with the legislative framework. In particular, the FWC examined whether the agreement was a genuine product of negotiation and whether it contained terms that were fair and reasonable in all respects.

In its decision, the FWC found that while there were some legitimate concerns regarding the fairness of certain provisions, the overall agreement was made in good faith and contained terms that were fair and reasonable. The FWC acknowledged the union’s concerns but concluded that the employer had addressed most of the issues raised during the review process. The FWC approved the enterprise agreement, subject to certain modifications that were deemed necessary to address the fairness concerns. The FWC emphasised the importance of a balanced and fair agreement in maintaining harmonious industrial relations.

The final orders of the FWC included the approval of the McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire Enterprise Agreement 2017, with specific modifications to certain clauses. These modifications were designed to ensure that the agreement met the statutory requirements for fairness and reasonableness. The decision underscores the FWC’s role in overseeing the negotiation and approval of enterprise agreements, ensuring that they are made in good faith and contain fair and reasonable terms. The outcome of this case provides a clear framework for future agreements and highlights the importance of addressing all parties' concerns during the negotiation process.

Merriman Holdings Pty Ltd T/A McKay’s Watercart and Sweeper Hire

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established