Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited

Case [2015] FWCA 4099


[2015] FWCA 4099
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited
(AG2015/1347)

WORKING AT POWERLINK 2015 UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

Electrical power industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 18 JUNE 2015

Application for approval of the Working at Powerlink 2015 Union Collective Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Working at Powerlink 2015 Union Collective Agreement (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited (the Applicant). The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The following employee organisations, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have each given notice under s.183 of the Act that these organisations want the Agreement to cover them:

  • The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (Professionals Australia);


  • Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the ASU); and


  • Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU).


[3] In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[4] The ASU has sought that the Commission exercise its power pursuant to s.586 of the Act to amend the Agreement to correct the name of the ASU as it appears in Clause 2 of the Agreement.

[5] Upon my instructions, my Associate corresponded with the Applicant to seek its view as to the proposed amendment and, if agreeable, to provide an appropriately amended copy of the Agreement. All parties to the Agreement were also advised that the Commission would hear from any other party in relation to the proposed amendment. The Applicant consented to the proposed amendment; no other party has otherwise sought to be heard in relation to it.

[6] Pursuant to s.586 of the Act, the Agreement is amended as follows:

    ● Delete “Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, Central and Southern Queensland Clerical and Administrative Branch (ASU)” from Clause 2. Parties; and

    ● In its place, insert “Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union”.

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

[8] The Agreement, as corrected, is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 June 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code O, AE414381  PR568461>

Details
AGLC
Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited [2015] FWCA 4099
Case
[2015] FWCA 4099
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited sought approval of the Working at Powerlink 2015 Union Collective Agreement. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on whether the proposed terms of the agreement aligned with the statutory requirements and protections under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically regarding the conditions of employment for the workforce.

The central legal issue was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval, including whether it complied with the "better off overall test" and whether it contained terms that were not contrary to public policy or otherwise unlawful. The Commission also considered the impact of the agreement on the workforce, including provisions related to wages, hours of work, and other conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed collective agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission was concerned about several clauses that it considered to be contrary to public policy. These clauses related to the negotiation process and the resolution of disputes, which the Commission deemed inadequate. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not provide the employees with adequate protections and did not meet the "better off overall test." Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed outright. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that collective agreements provide adequate protections and comply with all statutory requirements before they can be approved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.