DECISION

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

Padbro Pty Ltd
(AG2016/826)

PADBRO (DRIVERS) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER SPENCER	BRISBANE, 19 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Padbro (Drivers) Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Padbro (Drivers) Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Padbro Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] Written undertakings, relating to an amendment to Clause 4.2.2, have been provided by the employer and are attached to the Agreement. The undertaking has been signed by the employee bargaining representatives. In accordance with s.191 of the Act, the undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 days after the agreement is approved, that is, 26 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 26 April 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Padbro Pty Ltd, represented by its director, and the Transport Workers Union of Australia. The dispute arose from an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Padbro (Drivers) Enterprise Agreement 2016. The union opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission, presided over by Deputy President M McLoughlin, was required to determine whether the agreement was consistent with the Act, including whether it had been made in good faith and whether it provided for the protection of employees.

The legal issues central to this case were whether the agreement had been made in good faith, as required by section 233 of the Act, and whether it provided for the protection of employees, as required by section 235 of the Act. The union argued that the agreement did not meet these criteria, pointing to various clauses and the process by which the agreement was negotiated. Padbro Pty Ltd argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it had been made in good faith.

The Deputy President found that the agreement was consistent with the requirements of the Act. The court noted that the process of negotiation had been robust and that the agreement reflected the parties' respective positions. The Deputy President also found that the agreement provided for the protection of employees, including provisions for wages, conditions of employment, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Based on these findings, the application for approval of the Padbro (Drivers) Enterprise Agreement 2016 was approved.

Padbro 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