DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd
(AG2016/7626)

MMA VESSEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 16 DECEMBER 2016

Application for variation of the MMA Vessel Maintenance and Repair Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the MMA Vessel Maintenance and Repair Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd. A list of proposed changes is attached to this decision as Attachment A.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied under s.210 of the Act, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation made pursuant to s.210 of the Act operates 7 days from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the MMA Vessel Maintenance and Repair Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was brought by the employer, seeking changes to the existing enterprise agreement which governs the employment conditions of the employees involved. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed variations met the legal criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the proposed changes were procedurally fair and substantively justified. Procedural fairness required the employer to demonstrate that they had genuinely attempted to negotiate the changes with the relevant employee representatives. Substantive justification required the employer to show that the changes were necessary for the business to remain competitive and sustainable, and that they did not unduly undermine the rights and protections afforded to employees under the existing agreement.

The court found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated genuine negotiation, as required by procedural fairness. The employer had not provided sufficient evidence of their attempts to negotiate with the employee representatives. The court also found that while the employer had presented a strong case for the necessity of the changes to remain competitive, this was not enough to meet the threshold of substantive justification without proper procedural compliance. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed, as the employer failed to satisfy both procedural and substantive requirements for approving the changes to the enterprise agreement.

MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established