DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd T/A Prosegur
(AG2016/6094)

PROSEGUR AUSTRALIA, LANE COVE CASH PROCESSING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Clerical industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2016

Application for approval of the Prosegur Australia, Lane Cove Cash Processing Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prosegur Australia, Lane Cove Cash Processing Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 (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 Ltd T/A Prosegur. 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[4] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union 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 was approved on 28 October 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Prosegur, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Prosegur Australia, Lane Cove Cash Processing Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018. The application was contested by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which argued that the agreement did not meet certain legal standards, including those relating to procedural fairness and the scope of the enterprise. The Commission, consisting of Dr A R Adams, K E Williams and K M O'Rourke, was tasked with determining whether the agreement should be approved.

The central legal issues revolved around the validity and procedural fairness of the agreement, particularly whether the employer had adequately facilitated employee participation in the bargaining process, and whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that Prosegur had failed to provide sufficient information to employees, which impaired their ability to participate meaningfully in the negotiations. Additionally, the union contended that the scope of the enterprise defined in the agreement was not appropriate and did not accurately reflect the bargaining unit.

The Commission found that Prosegur had provided employees with adequate information to enable their participation in the bargaining process. Dr Adams, K E Williams and K M O'Rourke held that the information provided, including details about the enterprise, the scope of bargaining, and the terms of the proposed agreement, was sufficient to allow employees to engage in the negotiation process. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the scope of the enterprise was appropriately defined and did not contravene the legal requirements. The agreement was found to be in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009, and the application was approved. The union's objections were dismissed, and the Prosegur Australia, Lane Cove Cash Processing Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 was approved as presented.

Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd T/A Prosegur

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established