DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Profab Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1686)

PROFAB ENGINEERING PTY LTD AND AMWU METAL ENGINEERING ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 30 JANUARY 2015

Application for approval of the PROFAB ENGINEERING PTY LTD and AMWU Metal Engineering On-Site Construction Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the PROFAB ENGINEERING PTY LTD and AMWU Metal Engineering On-Site Construction 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 Profab Engineering 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] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 6 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Profab Engineering Pty Ltd applied for the approval of the PROFAB ENGINEERING PTY LTD and AMWU Metal Engineering On-Site Construction Agreement 2014. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union opposed the application, arguing that the agreement's terms were not fair and did not meet the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union contended that certain provisions, particularly those concerning penalty rates and shift patterns, were detrimental to the employees' interests and did not provide adequate protections.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement contained terms that were not fair and reasonable, and whether it met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to consider the balance of the agreement as a whole, the bargaining power of the parties, and the terms' alignment with the principles of the Act. The Commission also needed to assess whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it provided adequate protections and benefits.

After examining the agreement, the Commission concluded that several provisions were not fair and reasonable. The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' entitlements to penalty rates and did not provide sufficient safeguards for shift patterns and rostering. The Commission noted that the agreement's terms placed an undue burden on employees and did not provide the necessary protections to ensure fair treatment. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The parties were directed to negotiate a new agreement that met the requirements of the Act and provided fair terms for the employees.

Profab Engineering 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