DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited
(AG2016/2428)

PROSEGUR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Road transport industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL	SYDNEY, 11 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited ACT Enterprise Agreement 2016

[1] An application has been made by Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd (the applicant) for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited ACT Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement covers employees engaged by the employer as armoured vehicle operators and cash/coin room employees who are employed at the applicant’s Fyshwick branch. As per s.186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees covered by the Agreement was fairly chosen based on the operational and geographical distinction of the employees.

[3] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement has filed a statutory declaration (F18) in support of the approval of the Agreement.

Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR)

[4] The NERR contains the incorrect name of the Agreement; it refers to Prosegur Australia Pty Limited ACT Enterprise Agreement, which omits “2016” from the name of the Agreement.

[5] The applicant advised that omitting the reference to “2016” was a typographical error.

[6] I am satisfied that the NERR meets the requirements under s.174 and that the employees have not been misled in any way.

Consultation term

[7] Section 205(1)(b) of the Act requires a consultation term which allows the representation of employees. The consultation term contained in cl. 42 of the Agreement– Employee Consultation, with regard to representation only refers to the TWU. The Commission was concerned that those employees, whose representative was not the TWU, would not be recognised under the Agreement.

[8] The applicant requested an undertaking be provided to address this issue raised by the Commission.

[9] The applicant was advised that undertakings can only be accepted where the Commission has concerns regarding ss. 186 and 187. The consultation requirements found under s.205 cannot be remedied by undertakings. Accordingly, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term at Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 will be taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the model term is attached at Annexure A.

Better Off Overall Test

[10] The Transport (Cash in transit) Award 2010 and the Clerks Private Sector Award (the Awards) are the relevant reference instruments with respect to the better off overall test (BOOT) as required under s.186 of the Act. The rates of pay under the Agreement are higher than the corresponding minimum rates of pay under the respective Awards.

Approval

[11] Taking into account the higher rates of pay under the Agreement when compared to the corresponding Awards, I am satisfied that the Agreement results in employees being better off under the Agreement.

[12] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[13] The TWU has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the TWU.

[14] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1), the Agreement will operate from 18 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 9 September 2016 1.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Annexure A

1 At the request of the Commission, the applicant has confirmed that the Agreement expires on 9 September 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited sought approval for the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited ACT Enterprise Agreement 2016, a collective agreement between the employer and its employees in the Australian Capital Territory. The Fair Work Commission was the court responsible for the matter.

The central legal issues for the Commission to determine were whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also needed to consider whether the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement and whether the requisite procedural steps were followed.

In delivering its decision, the Commission examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated, the nature of the agreement itself, and the compliance with statutory requirements. The Commission noted that the agreement was the result of genuine bargaining between the parties and that the necessary procedural steps had been followed. The Commission found that the agreement contained the required minimum terms and conditions and was genuinely an enterprise agreement. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement as meeting all legal criteria.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited ACT Enterprise Agreement 2016, confirming its compliance with the statutory requirements and genuine nature as a collective agreement. This decision provided legal certainty to both the employer and employees regarding the terms of their employment under 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