DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Olex Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/9563)

NEXANS OLEX GEEBUNG WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 5 DECEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal Application for approval of the Nexans Olex Geebung Warehouse Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Nexans Olex Geebung Warehouse Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Olex Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 12 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 December 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by Olex Australia Pty Ltd, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal order made against them. The applicant sought to overturn a dismissal of an employee who had been terminated following an incident involving the use of offensive language in the workplace. The dispute was heard by Commissioner J C Healy. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant could demonstrate that the dismissal was not unfair, and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the dismissal was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct and that the employee had engaged in behaviour that was offensive and inappropriate.

The Commission considered the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties. The Commission found that the employee's conduct was serious and warranted disciplinary action, but that the dismissal was not procedurally fair. The Commission held that the applicant had failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures and had not provided the employee with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. The Commission also found that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support its claim that the dismissal was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct. As a result, the Commission upheld the original decision that the dismissal was unfair.

The Commission ordered that the applicant pay the employee's legal costs and also directed that the enterprise agreement be approved. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for appropriate protections for employees and that it was in the best interests of the parties to approve the agreement. The applicant was ordered to pay the employee's legal costs and the enterprise agreement was approved.

Olex 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