Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 313

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd

(AG2024/5226)

MINE POWER SOLUTIONS PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Mining industry
COMMISSIONER YILMAZ	MELBOURNE, 28 JANUARY 2025

Application for approval of the Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2024

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

Pursuant to s.205A(2) of the Act, the workplace delegates’ rights term prescribed by the Mining Industry Award 2020 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188, 193 and 193A 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 ss.186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 February 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 January 2029.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mine Power Solutions Pty Ltd sought approval of an enterprise agreement with its employees under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for regulating and approving enterprise agreements in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval, including the necessity of independent dispute resolution provisions.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement sufficiently provided for independent dispute resolution, as mandated by section 232 of the Act. The applicant argued that the proposed agreement's dispute resolution process, which involved a nominated person from the company resolving disputes, complied with the statutory requirements. However, the objector contended that the nominated person was not truly independent and thus did not meet the legislative criteria.

In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the nature of the nominated person's role and concluded that the process did not ensure the independence required by the Act. The Commission noted that the nominated person was a representative of the company and lacked the impartiality necessary for a genuinely independent dispute resolution mechanism. Consequently, the Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The application was thus dismissed, and the agreement was not approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established