Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 8570

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd
(AG2014/8158)

ORRCON STEEL GILLMAN AGREEMENT

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Orrcon Steel Gillman Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Orrcon Steel Gillman Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Orrcon Distribution 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] As the agreement does not contain a consultation term that meets the requirements of s.205(1) and 205(1A) of the Act, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is deemed to be a term of the agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 5 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 November 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Orrcon Steel Gillman Agreement. The applicant sought to have the agreement registered as a single-enterprise, multi-employer agreement under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was opposed by the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, which argued that the agreement was not appropriate for registration. The commission held that the application should be dismissed. The commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act as it did not provide for an appropriate process for resolving disputes and did not adequately protect the rights of employees. The commission also found that the agreement did not provide for a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes and did not adequately protect the interests of the employees. The application was dismissed.

The legal issues before the commission were whether the agreement provided for an appropriate process for resolving disputes, whether the agreement adequately protected the rights of employees, and whether the agreement provided for a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes. The commission found that the agreement did not provide for an appropriate process for resolving disputes as it did not include a provision for the parties to refer disputes to the commission for resolution. The commission also found that the agreement did not adequately protect the rights of employees as it did not provide for a mechanism for employees to be represented in the resolution of disputes. Finally, the commission found that the agreement did not provide for a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes as it did not provide for a mechanism for the parties to resolve disputes in a timely manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established