DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

MSS Security
(AG2017/769)

MSS SECURITY CROWN CASINO SECURITY EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Security services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 3 MAY 2017

Application for approval of the MSS Security Crown Casino Security Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MSS Security Crown Casino Security Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by MSS Security. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The United Voice being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 May 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 December 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MSS Security sought approval of the MSS Security Crown Casino Security Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016 before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved the enterprise agreement's terms and the process by which they were negotiated and agreed upon. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval, including whether it was made in good faith and if it contained the appropriate procedural fairness provisions.

The primary legal issues were whether the enterprise agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether the necessary procedural fairness was observed during the negotiation process. The employer argued that the agreement was made in good faith and contained appropriate procedural fairness provisions. However, the employee representative contended that the agreement did not genuinely reflect the outcome of negotiations and lacked proper procedural fairness.

The Commission examined the negotiation process and the terms of the agreement. It found that the employer had not genuinely negotiated with the employee representative and that the agreement did not accurately reflect the outcome of those negotiations. Additionally, the Commission determined that the employer had not observed the necessary procedural fairness during the negotiation process. Consequently, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for approval of the MSS Security Crown Casino Security Employees Enterprise Agreement 2016, finding that it was not made in good faith and did not contain the appropriate procedural fairness provisions. The employer was required to recommence negotiations with the employee representative in order to reach an agreement that met the necessary criteria for approval.

MSS Security

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established