DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited
(AG2016/4673)

PROSEGUR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED TASMANIA, ARMOURED VEHICLE OPERATORS AGREEMENT 2016 - 2019

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 10 OCTOBER 2016

Application for approval of the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Tasmania, Armoured Vehicle Operators Agreement 2016 - 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Tasmania, Armoured Vehicle Operators Agreement 2016 - 2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Prosegur Australia Pty Limited. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 17 October 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 May 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for approval of the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Tasmania, Armoured Vehicle Operators Agreement 2016 – 2019. The application was opposed by the Finance Sector Union of Australia, which argued that the proposed agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AAT was required to determine whether the proposed agreement complied with the Act and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The AAT examined the arguments of both parties and considered whether the proposed agreement was a "direct agreement" as defined by the Act. The AAT found that the agreement was a direct agreement, and therefore subject to the provisions of the Act. The AAT also considered whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The AAT found that the proposed agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and that it was in the best interests of the employees.

Accordingly, the AAT approved the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Tasmania, Armoured Vehicle Operators Agreement 2016 – 2019. The AAT noted that the agreement included provisions for minimum wages, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and other conditions of employment, which were consistent with the requirements of the Act. The AAT also noted that the agreement provided for a dispute resolution process, which would enable any disputes to be resolved in a fair and timely manner. The AAT was satisfied that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it was in the best interests of the employees.

The AAT approved the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Tasmania, Armoured Vehicle Operators Agreement 2016 – 2019, subject to certain conditions. The conditions included the requirement that Prosegur Australia Pty Limited provide the AAT with regular reports on the operation of the agreement, and that any disputes under the agreement be resolved through the dispute resolution process provided for in the agreement. The AAT also required Prosegur Australia Pty Limited to provide the AAT with a copy of any variation to the agreement, and to notify the AAT of any termination of the agreement.

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established