Mining Employment Services

[2014] FWCA 1001

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mining Employment Services
(AG2014/3357)

MINING EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Mining industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 11 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Mining Employment Services Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Mining Employment Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Mining Employment Services. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, the Fair Work Commission extends the period for filing the application in this matter to the date on which the application was filed.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 18 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 February 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Mining Employment Services, applied for the approval of the Mining Employment Services Enterprise Agreement 2013. The respondent, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), opposed the application, arguing that the agreement did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the fairness of the terms of the agreement, particularly those concerning pay rates, classification, and the inclusion of certain provisions.

The key legal issues for the Commission to determine were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and if it contained all the mandatory terms required by the Act. The Commission had to assess if the agreement met the standards of procedural fairness and if the terms of the agreement were reasonable in all respects. It was also necessary to examine whether the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of the employer and employees.

The Commission found that while the agreement was generally well-negotiated, several provisions did not comply with the Act. Notably, the pay rates and classification terms did not adequately consider the needs of the employees. The Commission also found that certain provisions, while included in good faith, were not in the best interests of the employees. After considering the arguments from both parties, the Commission decided to make orders to amend the agreement to ensure compliance with the Act. The amended agreement was then approved by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established