National Union of Workers

[2014] FWCA 6185

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
(AG2014/7300)

STOLTHAVEN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Stolthaven Australia Pty Ltd & National Union of Workers Collective Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Stolthaven Australia Pty Ltd & National Union of Workers Collective Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act 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] As the agreement does not contain a consultation term that meets the requirements of s.205(1) and 205(1A) of the Act, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement.

[4] The National Union of Workers has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act 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 12 September 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Stolthaven Australia Pty Ltd for approval of a collective agreement with the National Union of Workers. The application was brought in the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal tasked with regulating workplace relations in Australia. The central dispute was whether the agreement met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 for it to be approved and registered.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the collective agreement complied with the provisions of the Act, particularly those relating to procedural fairness, and whether it contained provisions that were contrary to public policy or not genuinely agreed upon by the parties. The union argued that certain provisions of the agreement were unfair and did not reflect a genuine agreement between the parties.

The tribunal found that the agreement did not comply with the Act in several respects, including that it did not meet the requirements for procedural fairness as it was not genuinely negotiated between the parties. The tribunal also found that some provisions of the agreement were contrary to public policy as they allowed for the termination of employees without just cause or excuse. As a result, the tribunal refused to approve the agreement and dismissed the application.

The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The tribunal found that the union had not been given adequate opportunity to negotiate the agreement and that some of the provisions were not genuinely agreed upon by the parties. The tribunal also found that the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy and could not be approved. The application was dismissed, and the agreement was not registered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established