Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 2793

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/5664)

PENTAIR WATER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 29 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] An undertaking has been given in relation to several clauses of the Agreement and those undertakings have become terms of the Agreement in accordance with s.191(1) of the Act and are appended at Appendix A.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 6 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 December 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd was the subject of an application to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of an enterprise agreement. The enterprise agreement in question was the Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute arose between Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd and its employees, represented by the Manufacturing, Food, Beverages, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers’ Union (MFBTU). The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the enterprise agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the procedural fairness in its creation and its substantive provisions. The MFBTU argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements for procedural fairness and contained several substantive unfair provisions. They contended that the agreement failed to adequately represent the interests of the employees and included terms that were contrary to public policy.

The Fair Work Commission carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Commission found that while the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, there were procedural shortcomings in the process, particularly regarding the notification and consultation with the employees. However, the Commission determined that these procedural issues did not invalidate the agreement as a whole. Regarding the substantive fairness, the Commission found that certain clauses in the agreement were indeed unfair, as they did not adequately protect the employees' interests and contravened public policy. Consequently, the Commission made orders to modify specific clauses of the agreement to ensure they aligned with the principles of procedural and substantive fairness as required by the Fair Work Act 2009.

Pentair Water Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established