DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

RPC Technologies Pty Ltd
(AG2019/2936)

RPC TECHNOLOGIES PTY LIMITED GEELONG ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT YOUNG	MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for approval of the RPC Technologies Pty Limited Geelong Enterprise Agreement 2019.

[1] RPC Technologies Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the RPC Technologies Pty Limited Geelong Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement) pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Form F16 nominated Dannielle Ballis and Jose Magtaka as employee bargaining representatives for the Agreement. Ms Ballis and Mr Magtaka have each lodged a Form F18A statutory declaration in support of the approval of the Agreement.

[3] The copy of the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) lodged by the Employer with the application for approval was the NERR prescribed by Schedule 2.1 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Regulations) immediately prior to 3 April 2017. The correct NERR prescribed by Schedule 2.1 of the Regulations for the agreement was the one prescribed by Schedule 2.1 of the Regulations with effect from 3 April 2017. The Employer accepts that it provided an earlier version of the NERR and provided submissions as to the error.

[4] In the circumstances and with regard to the Full Bench decision in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others [2019] FWCFB 318 at [128]-[140], I am satisfied that the mistaken provision of a pre- 3 April 2017 NERR to employees is a minor technical error in relation to the requirement of s 174 of the Act and the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by such an error. Accordingly, pursuant to s 188(2) of Act I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the earlier version of the NERR being provided to employees, the Agreement has been genuinely agreed within the meaning of s 188(2).

[5] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.

[6] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application, the accompanying statutory declarations, and the additional information provided by the Employer, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[7] The Agreement was approved on 10 September 2019 and, in accordance with s 54, will operate from 17 September 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2023.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RPC Technologies Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the RPC Technologies Pty Limited Geelong Enterprise Agreement 2019. The respondents were the employer and the trade union. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether it contained appropriate dispute resolution processes and whether it complied with the relevant provisions of the Act.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the enterprise agreement adequately provided for the resolution of disputes between the parties and if it was consistent with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission examined the dispute resolution clauses in the agreement and assessed them against the statutory criteria. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining requirements and other provisions of the Act.

The Commission determined that the enterprise agreement did not adequately provide for the resolution of disputes between the parties, as the dispute resolution clauses were not sufficiently clear and accessible. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for dispute resolution. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining requirements and other relevant provisions of the Act. As a result, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Commission. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements contain clear and accessible dispute resolution provisions to meet the legal requirements for approval.

RPC Technologies Pty Ltd

DECISION

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established