Rheem Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 5491

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Rheem Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7794)

RHEEM, SYDNEY SERVICE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 7 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Fair Work Commission notes and accepts the undertaking provided by the employer and it is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 14 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is1 March 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rheem Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013. The applicant sought approval of the agreement, which was negotiated with the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, as a ‘light-touch’ enterprise agreement. Rheem argued the agreement was not intended to be a ‘greenfields’ agreement and that the terms and conditions it contained were largely consistent with existing arrangements. The union opposed the application, arguing that the agreement was in fact a 'greenfields' agreement that failed to provide appropriate protections for employees. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the application for approval should be granted. This involved examining the nature of the agreement and whether it met the criteria for a 'light-touch' enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission found that the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013 was not a 'light-touch' enterprise agreement as it was a 'greenfields' agreement that introduced new terms and conditions of employment. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval as a 'light-touch' enterprise agreement because it did not maintain existing terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees in areas such as redundancy and termination of employment. The Commission refused the application for approval of the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013.

The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement and the evidence presented by the parties. The Commission found that the agreement was a 'greenfields' agreement that introduced new terms and conditions of employment, and that it did not meet the criteria for approval as a 'light-touch' enterprise agreement. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees in areas such as redundancy and termination of employment. The Commission refused the application for approval of the Rheem Sydney Service Collective Agreement 2013. The Commission's decision provides important guidance for employers and unions when negotiating and seeking approval of enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established