OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 2514

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd
(AG2014/758)

ONE STEEL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 2014 - 2015

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 14 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the One Steel Distribution Agreement 2014-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the One Steel Distribution Agreement 2014-2015 (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 Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act 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 has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 21 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd sought approval from the Competition and Consumer Commission for the One Steel Distribution Agreement 2014-2015, a contract between the company and its distribution partners. The ACCC's decision to reject the application was challenged by OneSteel in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the ACCC had correctly exercised its discretion under section 87B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in rejecting the application for approval. OneSteel argued that the ACCC's decision was unreasonable and not based on the relevant considerations.

The court examined whether the ACCC had acted irrationally or failed to consider relevant factors in its decision. The judge found that the ACCC had provided detailed reasons for its rejection and had considered all relevant factors, including the competitive impact of the agreement and the potential for anti-competitive conduct. The court held that the ACCC's decision was not irrational and that OneSteel had not demonstrated any errors in the ACCC's reasoning process. The judge emphasised the importance of the ACCC's discretion in assessing the competitive effects of distribution agreements and affirmed the ACCC's decision.

The court's decision confirmed the ACCC's authority to reject an application for approval of a distribution agreement if it considered the agreement likely to have anti-competitive effects. The Federal Court upheld the ACCC's rejection of OneSteel's application, emphasising the need for careful scrutiny of distribution agreements to protect competition. The court did not grant OneSteel's application for judicial review, and the ACCC's decision remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established