Prosegur Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2014] FWCA 2405

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited
(AG2014/4036)

PROSEGUR AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, CAIRNS DEPOT ARMOURED VEHICLE OPERATOR, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 11 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, Cairns Depot 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, Cairns Depot Armoured Vehicle Operator, Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 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 Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 18 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 April 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an enterprise agreement. The application was made by Prosegur, the employer, and the relevant union, United Voice Queensland, representing the employees. The agreement sought to govern the terms and conditions of employment for Prosegur’s armoured vehicle operators at their Cairns depot for the period 2014 to 2017. The union opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test" (BOOT) and contained provisions that were contrary to public policy.

The legal issues before the commission were whether the proposed agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it passed the BOOT and whether any provisions were contrary to public policy. The union argued that the agreement did not provide employees with adequate wages and conditions and contained provisions that were inconsistent with public policy, such as those related to the use of security guards and the management of fatigue. Prosegur contended that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment and was in the best interests of the employees.

The commission found that the agreement did not meet the BOOT, as the proposed wages and conditions were not better overall for the employees than what they would receive under the applicable award. The commission also found that certain provisions of the agreement, specifically those relating to the use of security guards and the management of fatigue, were contrary to public policy and could not be approved. The commission approved the agreement with modifications to ensure compliance with the BOOT and the removal of the provisions found to be contrary to public policy.

In light of the commission's findings, the agreement was approved with modifications, including an increase in wages and conditions to meet the BOOT. The provisions relating to the use of security guards and the management of fatigue were removed from the agreement. The union and Prosegur were directed to implement the modified agreement.

Prosegur Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established