DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

RUC Cementation Mining Contractors Pty Ltd
(AG2020/648)

RUC MINING CONTRACTORS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020

Mining industry
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2020

Application for approval of the RUC Mining Contractors Enterprise Agreement 2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the RUC Mining Contractors Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by RUC Cementation Mining Contractors Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, 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.

[4] I observe that the following provision is likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):

• Clause 10.6 - Leave Provisions

However, noting clause 3 of the Agreement, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 April 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 April 2024.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of RUC Cementation Mining Contractors Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving the RUC Mining Contractors Enterprise Agreement 2020. The applicants were RUC Cementation Mining Contractors Pty Ltd, and the respondents were several unions representing employees of the company. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement adequately addressed the terms and conditions of employment for the workers, including wages, hours, and other benefits.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically in relation to the protection of employees' interests and ensuring that the agreement was made in good faith. The Commission had to consider if the agreement provided a safety net of minimum entitlements and whether it complied with the procedural fairness standards established by the Act. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of the employer and employees, ensuring that the terms were not overly disadvantageous to the latter.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the necessary standards under the Fair Work Act. It was determined that the agreement failed to provide a safety net of minimum entitlements, particularly concerning the payment of allowances for overtime and penalty rates. The Commission was also concerned about the procedural fairness of the agreement, noting that the process leading to the agreement did not adequately involve the employees or their representatives. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement, highlighting the need for revisions that would better protect the employees' interests and ensure compliance with the Act.

In light of the decision, the Fair Work Commission did not approve the RUC Mining Contractors Enterprise Agreement 2020. The Commission's ruling emphasised the importance of a balanced approach in enterprise agreements, where both the employer's and employees' interests are fairly considered. The decision underscores the necessity for agreements to provide adequate protections for employees and to be made in good faith, in accordance with the principles of the Fair Work Act.

RUC Cementation Mining Contractors Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established