DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Limited
(AG2016/5188)

RUTLEDGE ENGINEERING (AUST) PTY LTD WA SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 18 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd WA Single Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application is made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On reviewing the application and the accompanying Employer’s Statutory Declaration it was unclear about when employees were notified of the date and place at which the ballot was to occur and the voting method to be used. It was therefore unclear whether the requirements of s.180(3) had been met. The Applicant has now provided further clarification about this matter and I am now satisfied this requirement has been met.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 25 November 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission concerns the approval of the Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2016. Rutledge Engineering, represented by the employer, applied for the approval of the agreement, while the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, representing the employees, contested the application. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically focusing on the process by which the agreement was made and its compliance with procedural fairness.

The central legal issue was whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether the process complied with the procedural fairness requirements stipulated in the Fair Work Act. The Commission needed to assess whether the union's concerns about the negotiation process were valid and whether the employer had taken adequate steps to ensure that the agreement was fairly negotiated. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the agreement contained the required minimum terms and conditions as prescribed by the Act.

In examining the evidence, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the agreement was indeed genuinely negotiated. The Commission found that the employer had made reasonable efforts to negotiate with the union, and despite the union's objections, there was no evidence to suggest that the process was unfair or that the union's concerns were not adequately addressed. The Commission also determined that the agreement met all the minimum terms and conditions required by the Act. As a result, the application for approval was granted, and the Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2016 was approved.

Rutledge Engineering (Aust) Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established