DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6162)

PRYSMIAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 1 DECEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd Union Collective Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd Union Collective Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 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.

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, National Union of Workers being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 1 December 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 8 December 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 July 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with deciding whether to approve the Union Collective Agreement 2016. The dispute arose from a negotiation between the employer, Prysmian Australia, and the union, which sought to establish terms and conditions for the employees covered by the agreement. The core issue before the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and if it appropriately balanced the interests of both the employer and the employees.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the agreement provided for a fair and efficient workplace, and if it adequately protected the rights of the employees. It also needed to consider whether the agreement met the standards of good faith bargaining and if it contained provisions that were consistent with relevant industrial laws. Furthermore, the Commission had to determine if the agreement's terms were reasonable in the context of the specific industry and economic environment.

The Commission examined the provisions of the agreement and the process through which it was negotiated. It found that the agreement had been reached through genuine efforts to negotiate in good faith and that the terms were fair and reasonable. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided for an efficient and productive workplace while adequately protecting the rights and interests of the employees. Consequently, the Commission approved the Union Collective Agreement 2016, finding that it met all the necessary statutory and procedural requirements.

Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established