| [2015] FWCA 8667 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2015/7499)
MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING PTY LTD – CENTRAL QUEENSLAND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT 2015 – 2017
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
COMMISSIONER ROE | SYDNEY, 15 DECEMBER 2015 |
Application for approval of the Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd – Central Queensland Operations Agreement 2015 – 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd – Central Queensland Operations Agreement 2015 – 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd. 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 Australian Workers’ Union and “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.
[4] The Agreement was approved on 15 December 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 22 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE417112 PR575073>
- AGLC
- Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 8667
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 8667
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission considered several aspects of the agreement, including the process by which it was negotiated and whether it covered the requisite minimum terms and conditions. The company argued that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and included all necessary provisions. The Commission examined the evidence provided, including submissions from both parties and any relevant documentation. It was crucial to determine if the agreement was made without coercion and whether it contained the mandatory minimum terms, such as those relating to pay rates, hours of work, and other employment conditions. The Commission also assessed whether the agreement facilitated the efficient operation of the company while protecting the rights of employees.
After reviewing the evidence, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the proposed agreement did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. The Commission identified several deficiencies, including issues with the process of negotiation and certain clauses that did not meet the mandatory minimum terms. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission's decision was based on the need to ensure that all employees' rights were protected and that the agreement facilitated fair and efficient workplace practices. The decision was communicated to both parties, and the company was required to address the identified deficiencies before any further application for approval could be considered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.