DECISION

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

Nofire Pty Ltd T/A Fyreguard
(AG2019/1702)

NOFIRE PTY LTD T/A FYREGUARD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 18 JULY 2019

Application for approval of the Nofire Pty Ltd T/A Fyreguard Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Nofire Pty Ltd T/A Fyreguard Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Nofire Pty Ltd.

[2] The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Appendix 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.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 25 July 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 July 2023.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Appendix A.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Nofire Pty Ltd, trading as Fyreguard, applied for the approval of the Nofire Pty Ltd T/A Fyreguard Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was contested by various unions representing employees of the company. The dispute primarily centred around the terms and conditions of employment, remuneration, and the overall fairness of the proposed agreement.

The key legal issues before the Commission involved determining whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. This included assessing if the agreement provided for minimum entitlements, if it was free from prohibited content, and if it was made in good faith and without coercion. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement addressed the needs of all employees fairly, including those who were not directly represented by the unions.

The Commission found that while the agreement contained provisions for minimum entitlements and was generally free from prohibited content, it did not adequately address the specific needs and concerns of all employee groups. The Commission highlighted that certain provisions could be improved to better ensure fair treatment and good faith bargaining. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the agreement, as presented, did not meet the statutory criteria for approval. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the agreement was not approved. Further negotiations were recommended to address the identified shortcomings.

Nofire Pty Ltd T/A Fyreguard

DECISION

Appendix A.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established