DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists T/A Sitetrain
(AG2016/3230)

Mining industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 2 JUNE 2016

Application for variation of the Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists Enterprise Agreement - agreement not varied - application dismissed.

[1] On 18 May 2016, Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists T/A Sitetrain applied under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission to approve a variation of the Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists Enterprise Agreement 1 (the Agreement).

[2] The proposed variation seeks to, inter alia, expand the scope of the Agreement so as to apply to any and all casual employees of the applicant, without further delineating between their duties or roles. It also seeks to replace the table of wages in cl 8.1 and implement a variable hourly rate between $20.00 to $100.00, without reference as to when or how this rate is to be determined. All the employees under the Agreement are employed as casuals. No penalty rates, shift loadings, allowances, overtime rates, etc. are payable under the Agreement.

[3] I cannot be satisfied that the Agreement as varied would pass the better off overall test. I do not consider that this shortcoming could be remedied via undertakings.

[4] Accordingly, I cannot approve the proposed variation. The application is dismissed.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

H Palazzi for Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists T/A Sitetrain.

Hearing details:

Sydney.

2016.

June 1.

1 AE896385.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by the Australian Education Union Tertiary Division to vary the terms of the Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists Enterprise Agreement. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The union sought variations in relation to employee entitlements and conditions, arguing that changes in the industry warranted adjustments to the agreement.

The central legal issues before the FWC were whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were necessary and appropriate. The union argued that the changes were required to address shifts in the industry, particularly in relation to the skills and qualifications of employees. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the existing agreement adequately covered the necessary terms and that the proposed changes were not warranted.

The FWC carefully considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the existing enterprise agreement effectively addressed the needs of both employees and employers. The FWC determined that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that the proposed changes were necessary or appropriate. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

The FWC's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the current state of the industry and the adequacy of the existing agreement. The FWC concluded that the proposed changes did not meet the threshold for variation under the Fair Work Act. The union's application was dismissed, and the enterprise agreement remained unchanged.

Proper Preparation OHS & Training Specialists T/A Sitetrain

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established