DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10019)

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED PARTS, WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2014

Application for variation of the Nissan Motor Company (Australia) Pty Limited Parts, Warehousing & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An Application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Nissan Motor Company (Australia) Pty Limited Parts, Warehousing & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise Agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss. 210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached.

[4] The variation will operate on and from 4 December 2014.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The parties involved in the matter were Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd and the United Voice union, which represents employees under the Nissan Motor Company (Australia) Pty Limited Parts, Warehousing & Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute revolved around an application by Nissan to vary certain provisions of the agreement, with the union opposing the proposed changes. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving workplace disputes and overseeing the enforcement of workplace laws in Australia.

The legal issues that the Commission had to decide included whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were reasonable and necessary to accommodate changes in the business environment, and whether the application complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to consider the balance of the competing interests of the employer and the employees, and assess whether the proposed changes would have a detrimental impact on the employees' rights and conditions of employment. The Commission also had to determine whether the application was made in good faith and whether there was a genuine attempt to negotiate with the union.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed changes were reasonable and necessary to accommodate changes in the business environment, and that the application complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the changes were aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the business, and that they would not have a detrimental impact on the employees' rights and conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the application was made in good faith and that there was a genuine attempt to negotiate with the union. The Commission therefore granted the application and varied the enterprise agreement as sought by Nissan.

The Fair Work Commission's decision in this matter provides important guidance on the factors that it will consider when deciding whether to grant an application to vary an enterprise agreement. Employers should take note of the Commission's emphasis on the need for proposed changes to be reasonable and necessary, and to be made in good faith and with a genuine attempt to negotiate with the relevant union. The decision also highlights the importance of demonstrating how proposed changes will not have a detrimental impact on employees' rights and conditions of employment.

Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established