| [2025] FWCA 2217 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Nkt Pty Ltd Trading AS Nkt Australia
(AG2025/1895)
NKT PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025-2029
| Electrical power industry | |
| COMMISSIONER FOX | MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2025 |
Application for approval of the NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029.
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). It has been made by Nkt Pty Ltd T/A Nkt Australia (the Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Notice of Employee Representational Rights issued to employees on 28 April 2025 titled the Agreement as NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029 single-enterprise agreement whilst the Agreement is titled NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029. I am satisfied having regard to the Full Bench decision in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others[1] that this constitutes a minor technical or procedural error for the purposes of s 188(5)(a) of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by this error.
The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. For the purposes of the better off overall test, I have had regard to each of the matters in s.193A(2)-(7).
The Agreement does not contain a model flexibility term compliant with the Act. Pursuant to s.202(4) and Clause 107 of Schedule 1 of the Act, the model flexibility term as prescribed by the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
I observe that the following clauses are likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):
Annual Leave: Clause 7.1.6 of the Agreement states that annual leave shall be taken at a time which is approved by the Company as being convenient having regard to overall operational and manning requirements of the Company and that final approval shall lie with the Company. Section 88(2) of the Act states that an employer must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by the employee to take paid annual leave.
Personal/ Carer’s Leave – Evidence: Clauses 7.2.2 and 7.2.8 of the Agreement specifies the type of evidence which will be accepted to quality for personal/ carer’s leave. Pursuant to s.107 of the Act, evidence required to support taking personal/ carer’s leave should be that which would satisfy a reasonable person.
Deduction of Monies: Pursuant to clause 5.1.8 of the Agreement, with respect to overpayment, in determining any termination payment, the Company may deduct from such final payment any balance of outstanding monies owing to the Company. This clause does not appear to limit the source of monies which may be deducted, and as such, the effect is that it appears to permit the employer to deduct employee’s entitlements under the NES (such as notice of termination, accrued but unused annual leave or long service leave on termination).
Redundancy: Clause 9.1.2 of the Agreement states that where the employer facilitates acceptable alternative employment, the provisions of the redundancy clause will not apply. Section 120 of the Act states that an employer may apply to the Fair Work Commission for a determination on the redundancy amount to be paid to an employee in certain circumstances.
Noting the undertakings provided, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.
The Agreement is approved, and in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 July 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 7 July 2029.
COMMISSIONER
Annexure A
[1] [2019] FWCFB 318.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE529593 PR788936>
- AGLC
- Nkt Pty Ltd Trading AS Nkt Australia [2025] FWCA 2217
- Case
- [2025] FWCA 2217
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement complied with the procedural fairness requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The unions argued that the bargaining process was not genuinely conducted and that the agreement did not adequately address the needs of the employees. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were at least as good as the relevant award or safety net award, and whether it included appropriate mechanisms for dispute resolution. Furthermore, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement met the 'better off overall test', ensuring that employees were not worse off financially as a result of the agreement.
The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement largely complied with the procedural fairness requirements and was genuinely negotiated. The Commission considered the terms and conditions of the agreement and determined that they were at least as good as the relevant award or safety net award. The agreement included provisions for dispute resolution and mechanisms for addressing employee concerns. The Commission concluded that the agreement met the 'better off overall test' and was in the best interests of the employees. Therefore, the application for approval of the NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029 was approved.
The Fair Work Commission approved the NKT Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029, finding it to be fairly negotiated and compliant with the relevant legislative requirements. The Commission's decision was based on its assessment that the agreement met the procedural fairness requirements, provided terms and conditions at least as good as the relevant award, and met the 'better off overall test'. The agreement was found to be in the best interests of the employees and was therefore approved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.