Murray Irrigation Limited Summary

[2013] FWCA 9877

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Murray Irrigation Limited
(AG2013/10044)

MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Agricultural industry
COMMISSIONER MCKENNA	SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Murray Irrigation Limited Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Murray Irrigation Limited Enterprise Agreement 2013 (“the Agreement”). The application has been made by Murray Irrigation Limited (“the applicant”) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application has been the subject of proceedings on a number of occasions, given some of the complexities arising from issues concerning the rates in the Agreement and the better off overall test. While there were a number of employee bargaining representatives involved in the negotiation of the Agreement, the principal advocates in the proceedings have been The Australian Workers’ Union (“the AWU”) and the applicant’s representative, First IR Pty Ltd (“the principal advocates”). It is common ground between the principal advocates there is no modern award that relevantly arises as a comparator reference instrument. As a result of discussion between the principal advocates, a Joint Statement was lodged on 10 December 2013 in relation to the application.

[3] The transitional rates that relevantly arise as comparator rates for the purpose of assessing the Agreement may be amenable to more than one interpretation. I am prepared, however, to proceed on the basis of the consent position put by the principal advocates in the Joint Statement, being a statement made against the background of earlier written and oral submissions in the proceedings.

[4] The applicant has otherwise provided written undertakings addressing miscellaneous matters. The views of the individual employee bargaining representatives were sought in relation to the undertakings, but none expressed any view. For its part, the AWU concurs with the content of the undertakings and has also given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation. A copy of the undertakings is attached to this decision and marked “Annexure A”. I note that, under s.191 of the Act, the undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement.

[5] Further, as the Agreement does not contain a flexibility term, the model flexibility term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] I am satisfied the provisions of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date is two years thereafter.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Murray Irrigation Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Murray Irrigation Limited Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant sought approval of the agreement under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009, on the basis that the agreement had been fairly negotiated and met the prescribed standards for the approval of enterprise agreements. The application was opposed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Tertiary Education Union.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated and whether it met the prescribed standards for the approval of enterprise agreements. In assessing whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated, the Commission considered whether the parties had engaged in genuine and meaningful negotiations, whether the parties had made a genuine effort to reach agreement, and whether the parties had acted in good faith. In assessing whether the agreement met the prescribed standards, the Commission considered whether the agreement contained the prescribed minimum terms and conditions of employment, whether the agreement provided for the protection of employees' rights and interests, and whether the agreement provided for the resolution of disputes.

The Commission found that the agreement had been fairly negotiated and met the prescribed standards for the approval of enterprise agreements. The Commission found that the parties had engaged in genuine and meaningful negotiations, had made a genuine effort to reach agreement, and had acted in good faith. The Commission also found that the agreement contained the prescribed minimum terms and conditions of employment, provided for the protection of employees' rights and interests, and provided for the resolution of disputes. Accordingly, the Commission approved the Murray Irrigation Limited Enterprise Agreement 2013.

Murray Irrigation Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established