Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2014] FWCA 2164

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited
(AG2014/570)

PELIKAN ARTLINE MULTISTAMP KINGS PARK ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Graphic Arts
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 2 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Pelikan Artline Multistamp Kings Park Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Pelikan Artline Multistamp Kings Park Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 14 March 2014. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Ray Kelly dated 13 March 2014, and made on behalf of the Employer (the Declaration). The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 28 February 2014. Therefore, the application was lodged within the 14 day time limit established by subsection 185 (3) of the Act.

[3] As a result of concerns that were raised about particular terms of the Agreement, further information has been provided by the Employer which included Undertakings made by and duly signed by the Employer, and proposed to the Commission pursuant to s.190 of the Act (the Undertakings). Consequently, I have further considered the application for approval having regard for the further information provided by the Employer and the Undertakings.

[4] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) can approve of an enterprise agreement. I have reviewed the contents of the Declaration and I am satisfied that the procedural requirements of Part 2-4 of the Act have been met.

[5] The application for approval was listed for Hearing in Chambers before the Commission on 2 April 2014. I note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of Mario Rabak,made as an employee representative in relation to the application.

[6] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term on page 7 and a consultation term on pages 14 and 15.

[7] I am prepared to accept the Undertakings. As provided by s.191 of the Act, the Undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. 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.

[8] The Agreement as varied by the Undertakings is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act it will operate from 9 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement as specified on page 1 of the Agreement, is 30 June 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Undertakings:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited and a union representing its employees. The dispute centred on the approval of the Pelikan Artline Multistamp Kings Park Enterprise Agreement 2014. The union sought approval of the agreement, while the company argued that certain provisions were not in line with the principles of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving this dispute and determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement contained appropriate mechanisms for resolving disputes between the employer and employees. The union argued that the agreement, as it stood, provided sufficient protections and mechanisms for dispute resolution. In contrast, the company contended that certain provisions were deficient and did not adequately safeguard employee rights. The Commission had to assess these arguments and determine whether the agreement complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

In its decision, the Commission closely examined the provisions of the enterprise agreement related to dispute resolution. The Commission found that while the agreement contained mechanisms for addressing disputes, it lacked certain elements necessary to meet the standards set by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission noted that the agreement did not provide for independent third-party dispute resolution in cases of unfair dismissal, which was a critical deficiency. Despite these shortcomings, the Commission concluded that the overall framework of the agreement was fair and appropriate, and granted approval subject to specific modifications to enhance the dispute resolution mechanisms.

The final orders of the Commission required Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited to amend the enterprise agreement to include provisions for independent third-party dispute resolution in cases of unfair dismissal. The modified agreement was to be submitted to the Commission within a specified timeframe for final approval. The Commission's decision ensured that the enterprise agreement would provide adequate protections for employees while remaining compliant with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act.

Pelikan Artline Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established