Regional Power Corporation T/A Horizon Power Corporation

[2013] FWCA 267

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Regional Power Corporation T/A Horizon Power Corporation
(AG2012/14312)

HORIZON POWER/ASU SALARIED EMPLOYEE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Electrical power industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 28 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Horizon Power/ASU Salaried Employee Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Horizon Power/ASU Salaried Employee Enterprise Agreement 2013. (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Regional Power Corporation T/A Horizon Power Corporation. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Regional Power Corporation trading as Horizon Power Corporation applied for approval of the Horizon Power/ASU Salaried Employee Enterprise Agreement 2013. The Australian Services Union was the registered bargaining representative for the employees involved in the enterprise agreement. The dispute arose because the application was made under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Act, including provisions for minimum wages, penalty rates, leave, and other employment conditions.

The Commission considered the submissions from both parties and the provisions of the proposed agreement. The Commission found that the agreement contained clauses that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the payment of overtime and penalty rates. The Commission also found that some provisions in the agreement were not sufficiently clear and precise, which could lead to uncertainty and potential disputes in the future. However, the Commission recognised the efforts made by the parties to reach a negotiated agreement and took into account the need for flexibility in the agreement to accommodate the operational requirements of the employer.

The Commission approved the agreement with modifications to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act. The modifications included clarifying the provisions for overtime and penalty rates, as well as adding a clause to ensure that employees are not required to work more than the maximum number of hours permitted under the Act. The Commission also directed the parties to undertake further negotiations to address other outstanding issues, including provisions for leave and other employment conditions.

The decision demonstrates the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and the need for clarity and precision in the language used in the agreement. The decision also highlights the role of the Fair Work Commission in facilitating the negotiation of enterprise agreements and promoting fair and productive workplace relations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established