| [2020] FWCA 4552 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
P & D Envirotech Pty Ltd
(AG2020/1875)
P & D ENVIROTECH PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020- 2024
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER JOHNS | SYDNEY, 27 AUGUST 2020 |
Application for approval of the P & D Envirotech Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2020 - 2024.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the P & D Envirotech Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2020 - 2024 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by P & D Envirotech Pty Ltd (Environtech). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] The was (up until the hearing of the matter) opposed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The CFMMEU raised a valid concern about a critical question, namely whether the employees who were employed at the time the Agreement was voted on were given an opportunity to vote (s 181(1) of the Act). It did so in the context that 12 employees are to be covered by the Agreement, but only 8 voted (all in favour).
[3] Noting the broad powers of the Commission, under s.590 of the FW Act, to inform itself in relation to any matter, I granted the CFMMEU the opportunity to make submissions. I did so because I was satisfied that the CFMMEU is entitled to represent employees with the job classifications that would otherwise be covered by the Building and Construction General (On-site) Award 2010 and, like most unions, plays an important role in maintaining and furthering the safety net of conditions of employment specified in the underlying modern award. The CFMMEU’s extensive history of industrial representation of workers in the building and construction industry also led me to the conclusion that I would be assisted in the matter if I granted the CFMMEU the opportunity to make submissions. The manner in which Mr Dayne Syron Industrial Officer, conducted himself proved my conclusion about the useful role that the CFMMEU could play in this matter to be correct.
[4] At the hearing today Environtech was represented by Mr Iain Jarman from the Master Building Association. During the hearing Mr Jarman drew the attention of the Commission to the “How and When for Approval – Enterprise Agreements” document (Exhibit 10). It set out the necessary requirements to notify the employees of the intended vote. It is clear after reading Exhibit 10 that all employees were provided with the opportunity to vote. In the face of Exhibit 10, the CFMMEU sensibly withdrew its objection to the approval of the Agreement.
[5] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure 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. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.
[6] 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.
[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 3 September 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 September 2024.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE508863 PR722217>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- P & D Envirotech Pty Ltd [2020] FWCA 4552
- Case
- [2020] FWCA 4552
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the Commission to decide were whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if it was in the best interests of the employees. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement met the 'better off overall test', ensuring that employees would not be worse off financially or in terms of conditions compared to their previous arrangements. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the agreement adhered to the 'good faith' requirement and was free from any discriminatory provisions.
The Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement was compliant with the statutory requirements and met the 'better off overall test'. The agreement was deemed to be in good faith and contained no discriminatory provisions. The Commission approved the agreement, recognising that it provided fair terms and conditions for the employees and that the union had adequately represented the interests of its members. The Commission's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented, including the financial implications for the employees and the overall benefits of the agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.