[2014] FWCA 4277 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Patrick Container Ports Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6297)
PATRICK PORT LOGISTICS “(PPL)” PORT OF BRISBANE WORKSHOP EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2013
Vehicle industry | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2014 |
Application for approval of the Patrick Port Logistics “(PPL)” Port of Brisbane Workshop Employee Collective Workplace Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Patrick Port Logistics “(PPL)” Port of Brisbane Workshop Employee Collective Workplace Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Patrick Container Ports 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.
[3] In my view, the Consultation provision in clause 8 of the Agreement is not a consultation term which meets the requirements of ss.205(1)(a)(ii) and (1A) of the Act, insofar as it does not include the terms concerning consultation about a change to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. These terms were introduced into the Act by Items 20 and 21 of Part 4 (Consultation about changes to rosters or working hours) of Schedule 1 (Family–friendly measures) of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act).Those amendments operate in relation to an enterprise agreement that is made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 on 1 January 2014 (See clause 5(2) of Item 1 of Schedule 7 (Application and transitional provisions) of the Amendment Act).
[4] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that if an “enterprise agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement”. The model consultation term is found in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.
[5] As required by s.201(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, I note that the model consultation term is taken, under s.205(2), to be a term of the Agreement.
[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 June 2017.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE408813 PR552495>
- AGLC
- Patrick Container Ports Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 4277
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 4277
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this case related to whether the agreement was fairly negotiated and whether it provided adequate protections for employees. The court examined the negotiation process, the content of the agreement, and the protections provided for employees. The court also considered the potential impact of the agreement on the bargaining power of employees and the overall fairness of the agreement. The court had to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The court found that the agreement was fairly negotiated and provided adequate protections for employees. The court noted that the negotiation process was transparent and that the agreement contained provisions for dispute resolution and protection of employee rights. The court also found that the agreement had the potential to improve productivity and efficiency within the applicant’s operations. The court concluded that the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and granted the application.
The court approved the Patrick Port Logistics (“PPL”) Port of Brisbane Workshop Employee Collective Workplace Agreement 2013, finding that it was fairly negotiated and provided adequate protections for employees. The court noted that the negotiation process was transparent and that the agreement contained provisions for dispute resolution and protection of employee rights. The court also found that the agreement had the potential to improve productivity and efficiency within the applicant’s operations. The court concluded that the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
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.