National Union of Workers

[2013] FWCA 4357

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Approval of enterprise agreement

National Union of Workers
(AG2013/1666)

MONTAGUE COLD STORAGE (WEST MELBOURNE) & NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON	MELBOURNE, 4 JULY 2013

Montague Cold Storage (West Melbourne) & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Application for approval of the Montague Cold Storage (West Melbourne) & National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by National Union of Workers. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 11 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2015.

[4] The National Union of Workers 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.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Montague Cold Storage (West Melbourne) Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved an enterprise agreement between Montague Cold Storage, a company operating a cold storage facility in Melbourne, and the National Union of Workers, representing the employees of the company. The union challenged the agreement, claiming it did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a certified agreement.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the coverage, bargaining, and fairness requirements of the Act. Specifically, the union argued that the agreement did not adequately cover the entire bargaining unit, did not result from genuine bargaining, and contained terms that were not fair and reasonable. The Commission had to determine whether the agreement was valid and could be certified under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement met the coverage and bargaining requirements. The agreement was certified to cover all employees of Montague Cold Storage who were part of the bargaining unit, and the Commission determined that the union had genuinely bargained with the employer. However, the Commission did not certify the agreement due to concerns about fairness. The agreement contained terms that the Commission found were not fair and reasonable, particularly those relating to the classification and remuneration of employees. These terms did not provide adequate protection for employees and did not meet the standards set out in the Act.

The Fair Work Commission declined to certify the enterprise agreement, finding it did not meet the fairness requirement. The agreement was thus not legally binding on the parties and could not be enforced under the Fair Work Act. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements provide fair and reasonable terms for employees, and that they result from genuine bargaining between employers and employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established