DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

MHB Commercial
(AG2016/4576)

MHB COMMERCIAL PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the MHB Commercial Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreements 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MHB Commercial Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreements 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by MHB Building Group Pty Ltd T/As MHB Commercial. 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 23 August 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 August 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

MHB Commercial Pty Ltd brought an application before the Fair Work Commission for the approval of Enterprise Agreements made with its employees, dated 2016. The applicant sought to establish new terms and conditions of employment for its workforce, including adjustments to wages, working hours, and various other employment-related matters. The dispute primarily revolved around whether the proposed agreements complied with the requirements set by the Fair Work Act 2009 and the broader principles of fairness and reasonableness expected under Australian labour law.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed Enterprise Agreements met the legal criteria for approval, including assessing if they provided for the "better off overall test" and if they adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the agreements contained terms that were contrary to public policy or that unfairly disadvantaged any party. The central issues included the fairness of the wage provisions, the implications of the proposed working hours, and the overall balance of the terms in light of the requirements for genuine negotiation and the public interest.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed Enterprise Agreements were in compliance with the statutory requirements and met the better off overall test. The court emphasised that the agreements were the result of genuine negotiations and provided for fair and reasonable terms for the employees. It was noted that the proposed changes to wages and working conditions were equitable and did not contravene any public policy considerations. The Commission was satisfied that the procedural integrity of the negotiation process was maintained and that the agreements would not lead to any undue hardship or unfair treatment of the employees. Consequently, the court approved the Enterprise Agreements, paving the way for their implementation.

The Fair Work Commission issued orders approving the Enterprise Agreements dated 2016, effective from the date of the decision. The agreements were to be registered and binding on all parties involved, including the employer and the employees represented by the relevant unions. The decision mandated that the terms of the agreements would govern the employment conditions unless otherwise specified by law or a subsequent approved agreement.

MHB Commercial

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established