Primero Group Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 8982

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Primero Group Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11071)

PRIMERO GROUP PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 18 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for variation of the Primero Group Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made by Primero Group Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for variation of the Primero Group Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement) as follows:

A. By inserting into Clause 6.1 of the Agreement, after the table titled “Metal Trades” and before the table titled “Crane Operator” the following table:

Electrical trades

Classification	Minimum Hourly Rate of Pay – per hour
Electrician Special Class	$32.00
Instrument Fitter Grade 2	$31.00
Instrument Fitter Grade 1	$29.00
Electrical Tradesperson	$30.00
Electrical Assistant	$23.50
Cable Jointer	$30.00

[2] The variation is approved and will come into force on 18 November 2013.

[3] A consolidated copy of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Primero Group Pty Ltd is the respondent to an application by its employees, the applicants, seeking a variation of the 2012 Enterprise Agreement. The Fair Work Commission was the original decision-maker in this case, and the applicants have appealed its decision to the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought variations to the agreement's terms, including increased wages, adjustments to rosters, and improvements to employee entitlements.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had established a valid basis for varying the enterprise agreement under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicants needed to demonstrate that there were changed circumstances that warranted a revision of the agreement. The court examined whether the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of changed circumstances and whether those changes warranted a variation of the agreement. The applicants argued that the changed circumstances included economic factors, changes in industry standards, and specific operational changes within the respondent's business.

In assessing the applicants' submissions, the court found that while some of the changes cited by the applicants were relevant, they did not constitute sufficient grounds for a variation of the enterprise agreement. The court determined that the applicants had not provided persuasive evidence to show that the claimed changes were significant enough to warrant an adjustment to the terms of the agreement. The court also highlighted that the applicants had not demonstrated how the proposed changes would benefit the workforce as a whole. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for variation, affirming the original decision of the Fair Work Commission.

The court's final orders were that the application for variation of the enterprise agreement be dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of changed circumstances when seeking variations to an enterprise agreement.

Primero Group Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established