Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 1730

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Pty Ltd
(AG2012/8458)

ROBERTS PLUMBING AND CONTRACTING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Plumbing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 19 MARCH 2013

Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012 (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 ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] I had some concerns regarding Part 9 in the Agreement. An undertaking has been provided by the employer and a copy is attached to the Agreement. I do not know of any person being a bargaining representative for the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning the validity of certain terms in the Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Enterprise Agreement 2012. The dispute arose between the employer, Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Pty Ltd, and the trade union representing the employees, the United Voice Union of Australia. The crux of the issue involved the interpretation and enforceability of specific clauses within the enterprise agreement, which the union argued were unfair and contrary to the principles of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether certain terms of the enterprise agreement were procedurally or substantively unfair. This required the Commission to delve into the procedural fairness of the agreement-making process and the substantive fairness of the terms themselves. The union contended that the process leading to the agreement was flawed due to inadequate consultation, while the employer argued that the process was fair and that the terms were reasonable and necessary for the business. The Commission needed to determine whether the agreement met the standards set by the Fair Work Act and whether the terms were fair and reasonable in the context of the overall agreement.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that several terms in the enterprise agreement were indeed unfair. The Commission held that the process of agreement-making did not meet the procedural fairness requirements as the employer failed to adequately consult with the union. Additionally, the Commission found that certain substantive terms were unfair because they imposed unreasonable obligations on the employees and provided inadequate protections. Consequently, the Commission declared those terms to be void and of no effect. The Commission also made orders to ensure that the employer and union could renegotiate the agreement to address the identified issues in a manner that complied with the Fair Work Act.

The final orders included a declaration that specific terms of the enterprise agreement were unfair and invalid, with instructions for the parties to renegotiate the agreement within a specified timeframe. The Commission also ordered that the employer provide the union with additional information and documentation to facilitate the renegotiation process. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the agreement-making process and the necessity for terms to be substantively fair, balanced, and reasonable.

Roberts Plumbing and Contracting Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established