DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Qube Logistics (Rail) Pty Ltd
(AG2015/1304)

QUBE LOGISTICS RAIL MAINTENANCE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Rail industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2015

Application for approval of the Qube Logistics Rail Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Qube Logistics (Rail) Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Qube Logistics Rail Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (the ‘Union’) and is to cover 12 employees who are engaged to perform maintenance on rail rolling stock at specified workshops across Sydney. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 17 June 2013 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 22 May 2015. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a vote for the Agreement’s approval, all 9 of the employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 1 June 2015, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr D Coulton, National IR Manager identified the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 [MA000010] and the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries 1998 [AP789529] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Coulton said that the Agreement provides for higher rates of pay and that there are no less beneficial conditions. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 6 and 5 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 7 erroneously refers to Fair Work Australia, which I take as providing for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 16 June 2015, Mr D Coulton appeared for the applicant and Mr J Lavelle Wilson for the Union. Mr Coulton outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that rates of pay are to be increased by 1.6% on 1 June 2015, 3% on 1 June 2016 and 3% on 1 June 2017. The increase due on 1 June 2015 has already been paid. Mr Lavelle Wilson supported the submissions of Mr Coulton. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Qube Logistics Rail Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015 Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 23 June 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 June 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Qube Logistics (Rail) Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Qube Logistics Rail Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015. The respondents to the application were the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and the Transport Officers Union. The application concerned an enterprise agreement for employees of Qube Logistics Rail who are involved in the maintenance of rail infrastructure, rolling stock, and other rail assets. The dispute centred on the terms and conditions of employment for these workers, including wages, hours of work, and other employment-related matters.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether the agreement had been made in good faith and whether it provided for the proper regulation of terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees it covered. The unions argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employees' interests, particularly in relation to wages and conditions. They also contended that the agreement had not been made in good faith.

The Commission found that the agreement had been made in good faith and that it met the requirements of the Act. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a significant increase in wages over a four-year period and that it contained provisions that were beneficial to employees, such as provisions for flexible working arrangements and provisions that protected employees from unfair dismissal. The Commission also found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees it covered, taking into account the economic climate and the bargaining positions of the parties. The unions' objections were dismissed, and the agreement was approved.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Qube Logistics Rail Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015, finding that it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was in the best interests of the employees it covered. The Commission rejected the objections of the unions and approved the agreement, which will now apply to the employees it covers.

Qube Logistics (Rail) 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