Prosegur Australia Pty Limited

Case [2014] FWCA 5325


[2014] FWCA 5325
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited
(AG2014/6242)

PROSEGUR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, QUEENSLAND, MOOROOKA, ARMOURED VEHICLE OPERATOR, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT, 2014-2017

Security services

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, Queensland, Moorooka, Armoured Vehicle Operator, Enterprise Agreement, 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, Queensland, Moorooka, Armoured Vehicle Operator, Enterprise Agreement, 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Prosegur Australia Pty Limited. It is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] On reviewing the application and the copy of the proposed Agreement I am generally satisfied that its terms and conditions satisfy the requirements of the “better off overall” test, particularly as the proposed rates of pay in the Agreement are significantly higher than those contained in the underlying Transport (Cash in Transit) Award 2010.

[3] However, in its form F18 – Statutory Declaration the Transport Workers’ Union, who are a bargaining representative for the Agreement, raised one additional matter concerning the definition of shiftwork, and the entitlement of shift workers to an additional week of annual leave. These matters are currently dealt with in clause 49 of the proposed Agreement, however, the Union indicated it wanted a more specific definition of shift worker and particular reference to the annual leave entitlement.

[4] The Commission subsequently contacted the employer who indicated it was prepared to provide an undertaking in the terms sought by the Union. The undertaking is in the following terms:

    “A shift worker under the terms of the Agreement is defined as a seven-day shift worker who is regularly rostered to work on Sundays and public holidays. A person engaged as a shift worker, as defined, is entitled to 5 weeks of paid annual leave each year or the pro rata equivalent of that amount for any period of employment of less than twelve months.”

[5] I am satisfied that the proposed undertaking does not cause financial detriment to any employee to be covered by the proposed Agreement, or result in substantial changes to it. It is accordingly accepted and will form part of the Agreement. A copy is also attached to this decision.

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

[7] 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) the I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 August 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE409472  PR553961>

Details
AGLC
Prosegur Australia Pty Limited [2014] FWCA 5325
Case
[2014] FWCA 5325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, an armoured vehicle operator, sought approval of its enterprise agreement, which covered employees in Queensland, Moorooka. The dispute involved the terms and conditions of employment as set out in the proposed agreement for the period 2014 to 2017. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has the authority to approve such agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to address were whether the agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act. Procedurally, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement had been made in good faith and if the necessary consultation and disclosure obligations had been met. Substantively, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" and did not contain any provisions that were against the public interest.

The Commission found that Prosegur Australia Pty Limited had met all procedural requirements, including good faith bargaining and adequate consultation. The substantive analysis showed that the agreement was fair and balanced, meeting the better off overall test. The Commission also concluded that there were no provisions that were against the public interest. Therefore, the Commission approved the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, Queensland, Moorooka, Armoured Vehicle Operator, Enterprise Agreement, 2014-2017.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise agreement between Prosegur Australia Pty Limited and its employees, determining that it met all necessary legal criteria under the Fair Work Act.

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.