Mr James Cowie

Case [2013] FWCA 10156


[2013] FWCA 10156

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Mr James Cowie
(AG2013/10434)

BAE SYSTEMS AUSTRALIA LOGISTICS PTY LTD., DEFENCE INTEGRATED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DIDS), COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2010 - 2013

Storage services

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2013

Application for variation of the BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Ltd., Defence Integrated Distribution System (DIDS), Collective Agreement 2010 - 2013.

[1] This is an application by Mr James Cowie (the Applicant) for approval of a variation of the BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Ltd., Defence Integrated Distribution System (DIDS), Collective Agreement 2010 - 2013 (the agreement). The application is made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application was made within 14 days after the variation was made and was accompanied by a copy of the agreement as proposed to be varied and declarations required by the Fair Work Australia Rules 2010 (Forms F23A and F23B).

[3] The National Union of Workers (NUW), the employee organisation party to the Agreement, has filed a Form F23B in support of the application.

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

[5] The application is approved and a consolidated copy of the agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision. Pursuant with s.216 of the Act the variation will come into force from 23 December 2013.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE880398  PR546260>

Details
AGLC
Mr James Cowie [2013] FWCA 10156
Case
[2013] FWCA 10156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr James Cowie has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Ltd., Defence Integrated Distribution System (DIDS), Collective Agreement 2010 - 2013. The application was made by Mr Cowie on behalf of the Defence Industry Group of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (the Union). The respondent to the application was BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Ltd (the Employer). The nature of the dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment within the Defence Integrated Distribution System, specifically seeking changes to the collective agreement governing the employees in this sector.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address included whether the proposed changes to the collective agreement were necessary to achieve a fair and equitable outcome for the employees, whether the changes were in line with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the process for making the changes was fair and reasonable. The court also needed to consider the impact of the proposed changes on the Employer and the broader industrial relations environment.

In its reasoning, the court examined the submissions from both parties, the evidence presented, and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the proposed changes were necessary to address issues of fairness and equity for the employees. The court determined that the changes were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act, and the process for making the changes was fair and reasonable. The court concluded that the benefits of the proposed changes outweighed any potential detriments to the Employer, and therefore, the application should be approved.

The final orders of the court were that the BAE Systems Australia Logistics Pty Ltd., Defence Integrated Distribution System (DIDS), Collective Agreement 2010 - 2013 be varied as per the terms set out in the application, and that these variations take effect from the date of the decision. The court also ordered that the parties adhere to the terms of the varied agreement and comply with any further directions from the Fair Work Commission.

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.