DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.602 - Application to correct obvious error(s) etc. in relation to FWC’s decision

Metcash Trading Limited T/A Mitre10 Australia
(AG2018/6014)

MITRE 10 DERRIMUT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018

Storage services
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2020

Application for an order varying the Agreement in [2019] FWCA 1796

[1] This decision deals with an application by Metcash Trading Limited (the Applicant) to vary the Mitre 10 Derrimut Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Agreement) approved by me on 19 March 2019 in [2019] FWCA 1796. The decision approved the Agreement, following an application made under s.186 of the Act.

[2] The present application seeks to amend the Agreement to insert missing pages 25 and 26.

[3] It was identified by the Fair Work Commission’s Agreement Research Team that the Agreement filed with the originating Form F16 application on 26 October 2016 was missing pages 25 and 26 and email correspondence was issued to the Applicant on 7 February 2019 requesting a complete copy of the Agreement be provided.

[4] A complete copy of the Agreement was filed in the Commission by the Applicant the same day, 7 February 2019.

[5] When the Agreement was approved by me on 19 March 2019, the original version of the Agreement filed with missing pages 25 and 26 was published erroneously.

Consideration

[6] Section 602 of the Act provides as follows:

“602 Correcting obvious errors etc. in relation to the FWC’s decisions

(1) The FWC may correct or amend any obvious error, defect or irregularity (whether in substance or form) in relation to a decision of the FWC (other than an error, defect or irregularity in a modern award or national minimum wage order).

Note 1: If the FWC makes a decision to make an instrument, the FWC may correct etc. the instrument under this section (see subsection 598(2)).

Note 2: The FWC corrects modern awards and national minimum wage orders under sections 160 and 296.

(2) The FWC may correct or amend the error, defect or irregularity:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] I am accordingly satisfied that the Commission has the power under s.602 to amend the terms of a decision handed down by a Commission Member in circumstances where the Commission is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, defect or irregularity.

[8] I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to correct the obvious error in order that the Agreement approved by the Commission accurately reflects the original intention of the parties to the Agreement. I therefore intend to make an order amending the Agreement inserting the two missing pages.

[9] An order to this effect will be issued following this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Metcash Trading Limited, trading as Mitre10 Australia, was the applicant in the Fair Work Commission, seeking an order that varied the existing enterprise agreement. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment for the employees under the agreement, specifically focusing on changes in the workplace arrangements and the consequent impact on the workforce. The court, the Fair Work Commission, was tasked with examining the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed changes, considering the implications for both the employer and the employees.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were fair and reasonable, and whether they complied with the statutory framework governing enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to assess the balance of interests between the employer's need to adapt to changing business conditions and the employees' rights to fair treatment and protection from detrimental changes.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the broader context of the workplace. It examined the nature of the proposed changes, the justification provided by the employer, and the impact on the employees. The court found that the changes were necessary for the business to remain competitive and that the proposed measures were reasonable and fair, taking into account the benefits to the business and the minimal adverse impact on the employees. Consequently, the court granted the application, allowing the variation of the enterprise agreement as sought by the applicant.

Metcash Trading Limited T/A Mitre10 Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established