Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 9672

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11787)

AMWU AND THE MERSEN OCEANIA PTY LTD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WORKSHOP AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 10 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the AMWU and the Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd Collective Bargaining Workshop Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the AMWU and the Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd Collective Bargaining Workshop Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd. 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 “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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 17 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, sought approval of a collective bargaining workshop agreement with Mersen Oceania Pty Ltd. The union argued that the agreement would provide better terms and conditions for its members employed by the company. The company opposed the application, contending that the proposed agreement was not in the best interests of the employees and would result in increased costs without corresponding benefits.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed collective agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided better terms and conditions for the employees and whether the benefits outweighed the costs. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a 2.25% increase in wages over three years, as well as improvements to leave entitlements and other benefits. The Commission also noted that the agreement provided for a mechanism for resolving disputes between the union and the company.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the proposed agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for modest wage increases and other benefits, and that the costs of the agreement were not excessive. The Commission also found that the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission approved the proposed collective agreement, subject to certain conditions. The company was ordered to implement the agreement from 1 July 2013. The union was ordered to provide the company with a copy of the agreement and to take such steps as were necessary to ensure that its members were aware of the terms of the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established