DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

OneSteel Trading Pty Limited T/A OneSteel MetalCentre
(AG2016/1152)

ONESTEEL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 2016-2017

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the OneSteel Distribution Agreement 2016-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the OneSteel Distribution Agreement 2016-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by OneSteel Trading Pty Limited T/A OneSteel MetalCentre. 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement was approved on and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

OneSteel Trading Pty Limited, trading as OneSteel MetalCentre, applied to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for approval of the OneSteel Distribution Agreement 2016-2017. The applicant sought authorisation under section 88C of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as it related to a proposed distribution agreement. The nature of the dispute involved the potential anti-competitive effects of the agreement and whether it could be approved under the Act.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed distribution agreement would have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any relevant market and if the benefits of the agreement outweighed any potential anti-competitive effects. The court also needed to determine if the agreement met the criteria for authorisation under section 88C of the Act.

The court found that the agreement did not have the effect of substantially lessening competition in any relevant market. The proposed agreement would not lead to anti-competitive practices such as price fixing or market allocation. Furthermore, the benefits of the agreement, including efficiencies and improved distribution networks, outweighed any potential anti-competitive effects. The court was satisfied that the agreement met the criteria for authorisation under section 88C of the Act.

The court approved the OneSteel Distribution Agreement 2016-2017, authorising its implementation. The authorisation was granted subject to specific conditions to ensure that the agreement would not result in anti-competitive practices and that the benefits would be realised in the market. The court considered the overall public interest and the need to balance competition concerns with the potential benefits of the agreement.

OneSteel Trading Pty Limited T/A OneSteel MetalCentre

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established