DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

MRS SubZero Pty Ltd T/A MRS Services Group
(AG2017/4263)

MRS-SG MAINTENANCE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 8 FEBRUARY 2018

Application for approval of the MRS-SG Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MRS-SG Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by MRS SubZero Pty Ltd T/A MRS Services Group. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the CFMEU) sought leave to appear at the hearing of this matter. The CFMEU was not a bargaining representative for the Agreement. The CFMEU alleged that the appropriate award for the purpose of the better off overall test (the BOOT) was the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 and not the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 or the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010.

[3] That application was opposed by MRS SubZero Pty Ltd. The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) did not oppose the CFMEU being heard on the question of the relevant award for the purpose of the BOOT.

[4] I decided to permit the CFMEU to appear. On the first occasion the matter was before me, the parties were unable to provide much assistance to the Commission in relation to questions raised by the CFMEU. As I would clearly need to consider this issue I formed the view that given the role of the CFMEU in the black coal mining industry that they would be able to assist the Commission in reaching a determination of this issue.

[5] Mr Jonathon McTaggart who is the Chief Operating Officer for MRS gave evidence 1 about the company’s operation. He gave unchallenged evidence that MRS is a provider of technical services in the construction and resource industries.2 He said that MRS provides a range of structural and mechanical support services including:

(a) industrial painting and sand blasting;

(b) structural repair and fabrication to mining plant and equipment, components and industrial machinery; and

(c) complete machine rebuilds, machine repairs and diagnostic monitoring of automotive vehicles and heavy and light weight machinery in the heavy constructions and mining industries. 3

[6] Mr McTaggart gave evidence that MRS have a range of clients including mining companies, plant and equipment suppliers and mining service providers. 4

[7] Mr McTaggart said that the employees work at MRS’s workplaces and off-site. Employees may occasionally perform work at workshops or in other facilities located at client sites including construction and mining sites. 5 MRS has three workshops.6

[8] Mr McTaggart said that when employees are providing services on a client’s site…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MRS SubZero Pty Ltd T/A MRS Services Group and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FWCA 860
Decision Date: 8 FEBRUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MRS SubZero Pty Ltd, trading as MRS Services Group, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the MRS-SG Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was contested by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), which argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the scope of the enterprise agreement, the coverage of employees, and the terms of the agreement, particularly those related to classification, remuneration, and working conditions.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act, and if it provided for the fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees covered by the agreement. This included assessing whether the agreement met the criteria for "better off overall or at least no worse off" for the employees, and whether it contained provisions that were contrary to public policy or unjust.

In its decision, the Commission determined that the MRS-SG Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2017 was compliant with the Fair Work Act and met the statutory requirements. The Commission found that the agreement was fair and reasonable, providing for the employees' terms and conditions of employment without contravening any public policy or being unjust. The Commission also concluded that the agreement was "better off overall or at least no worse off" for the majority of the employees, and approved the agreement. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions, the evidence presented by the parties, and the relevant legal principles.

Orders