DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Path Transit Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6934)

PATH TRANSIT PTY LTD BUS DRIVERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - KALAMUNDA

Passenger vehicle transport (non rail) industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2017

Application for approval of the Path Transit Pty Ltd Bus Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 - Kalamunda.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Path Transit Pty Ltd Bus Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 - Kalamunda (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Path Transit Pty Ltd. 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 Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, 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 9 January 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 16 January 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 April 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Path Transit Pty Ltd was the subject of an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Path Transit Pty Ltd Bus Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 - Kalamunda. The dispute arose as a result of an application made by the employer, Path Transit Pty Ltd, seeking approval of the enterprise agreement in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues that the Commission was required to decide included whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Act, including the provisions concerning the protection of employees' rights and interests, and whether the agreement had been made in good faith and not for the purpose of undermining the rights of employees.

The Commission found that the agreement did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, primarily due to provisions that allowed for the unilateral termination of employment and the outsourcing of work without the need for consultation with employees. The Commission held that these provisions undermined the rights of employees and did not provide adequate protections for them. The Commission also found that the agreement had not been made in good faith, as the employer had not provided adequate information to employees about the agreement and had not engaged in meaningful consultation with them.

As a result, the Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement. The employer was ordered to withdraw the agreement and to engage in further consultation with employees to develop a new agreement that complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements provide adequate protections for employees and are made in good faith, and the role of the Fair Work Commission in overseeing the approval of such agreements.

Path Transit 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