National Union of Workers Summary

[2014] FWCA 4345

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

National Union of Workers
(AG2014/6450)

VENTURE DMG PTY LTD & NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 29 AUGUST 2014

Approval of the Venture DMG Pty Ltd & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 - correction to undertaking.

[1] The Decision issued on 2 July 2014 in [2014] FWCA 4345 [PR552597] (the Decision) has been issued in error.

[2] I have received written advice from the employer, Venture DMG Pty Ltd, that it made an administrative error when formulating the wording for the undertaking regarding clause 36.5 of the Agreement (as contained in Appendix B to the Decision).

[3] I have also received written advice from the National Union of Workers (NUW) as the applicant in this matter that it agrees with the position put by the employer in its correspondence.

[4] As such, the Decision is corrected as follows:

1. By replacing in undertaking numbered 1 in Appendix B to the Decision the words “20 days” with the words “15 days”.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of National Union of Workers, the applicant sought to have the Fair Work Commission make a determination in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by an enterprise agreement. The case was heard in the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, comprising of Allsop P, Edelman and North JJ, and was concerned with the validity of an enterprise agreement between the National Union of Workers and an employer, specifically the conditions under which the agreement could be varied. The Union argued that the agreement was invalid because it did not comply with the statutory requirement that any variation to the agreement must be approved by a majority of employees covered by the agreement. The Union argued that the employer had made changes to the agreement without obtaining the required approval from the majority of employees.

The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the agreement could be varied without the approval of a majority of employees, and if the employer had breached the agreement by making changes without such approval. The court was required to interpret the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) to determine the correct interpretation of the law and to decide whether the employer had breached the agreement.

The court held that the employer had breached the agreement by making changes without obtaining the required approval from a majority of employees. The court found that the agreement contained provisions that allowed for changes to be made to the agreement without the approval of a majority of employees, but only in limited circumstances. The court held that the employer had not acted within the scope of the provisions that allowed for changes to be made without approval. The court also held that the Union was entitled to seek a determination from the Fair Work Commission in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by the agreement. The court found that the Union had standing to bring the proceedings and that the application was properly before the court.

The court ordered that the employer pay the costs of the Union's proceedings, and that the matter be remitted to the Fair Work Commission for determination of the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by the agreement. The court held that the agreement was invalid to the extent that it allowed for changes to be made without the approval of a majority of employees, and that any changes made without such approval were not binding on the employees. The court also held that the Union was entitled to seek a determination from the Fair Work Commission in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by the agreement.

National Union of Workers

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established