| [2014] FWCA 5933 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Profibus1 Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1841)
PROFIBUS1 PTY LTD ROY HILL AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 27 AUGUST 2014 |
Application for approval of the Profibus1 Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Profibus1 Pty Ltd Roy Hill AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Profibus1 Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] Pursuant to s. 205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[4] I am satisfied that The Australian Workers’ Union, the employee organisation to be covered by the agreement, is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 27 August 2014 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 3 September 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 27 February 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE409816 PR554789>
- AGLC
- Profibus1 Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 5933
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 5933
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the agreement contained the mandatory terms prescribed by section 234 of the Act, whether the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining requirement in section 228 and whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The court considered the submissions of the parties and the evidence presented on these issues. The applicants argued that the agreement was a good faith outcome of proper bargaining and met all the legal requirements for approval. The unions argued that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees and did not comply with the good faith requirement.
The court found that the agreement contained all the mandatory terms prescribed by the Act and was a product of good faith bargaining. While some of the terms were not ideal for employees, the court was not satisfied that they were not in the best interests of employees overall. The court noted that the agreement provided for substantial pay rates and conditions for workers. The court accepted that while the agreement did not provide for union representation on site, the unions had been fully involved in the bargaining process. The court was satisfied that the agreement met the legal requirements for approval and made the orders sought by the applicants.
The orders included approval and registration of the agreement and the making of an order that it be in force from 1 July 2014. The court directed that the agreement be published in the Federal Register of Legislation. The unions were given leave to appeal the decision to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission within 21 days.
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.