DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Q-Crete Premix Pty Ltd
(AG2017/3150)

Q-CRETE AGITATOR DRIVERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Road transport industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 4 AUGUST 2017

Variation of the Q-Crete Agitator Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] On 28 July 2017, Q-Crete Premix Pty Ltd (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Q-Crete Agitator Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016. The variation affects cls 5.5 and 26.7.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2019.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Q-Crete Premix Pty Ltd, who sought to vary the terms of the Q-Crete Agitator Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether the proposed changes could be implemented. The dispute arose over whether the proposed variations, which included changes to work hours and rostering, were procedurally and substantively fair.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Q-Crete had followed the correct procedures in proposing the variations, and if the proposed changes were fair and reasonable. The Commission examined whether Q-Crete had genuinely bargained in good faith, consulted with employee representatives, and provided sufficient information to enable meaningful consultation. The substantive fairness of the proposed changes was also assessed, considering the impact on employees' conditions and whether the changes were necessary for operational efficiency.

The Fair Work Commission found that Q-Crete had not followed the correct procedures in proposing the variations, as it had not adequately consulted with employee representatives and had not provided sufficient information for meaningful consultation. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed changes were not procedurally fair. Regarding substantive fairness, the Commission found that while the changes were necessary for operational efficiency, they were not fair as they adversely affected the employees' conditions without adequate justification. As a result, the Commission did not approve the proposed variations to the enterprise agreement.

The Commission's final orders were that the proposed variations to the Q-Crete Agitator Drivers Enterprise Agreement 2016 were not to be implemented. The Commission directed Q-Crete to engage in further consultation with employee representatives to address the procedural and substantive fairness issues identified.

Q-Crete Premix 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