Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 3604

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/5945)

SANDVIK SMITHFIELD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 30 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Sandvik Smithfield Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sandvik Smithfield Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. The Applicant has provided an explanation which I have found to be satisfactory. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 10 March 2014.

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

[4] The Australian Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 6 June 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 April 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd is the subject of an application for the approval of the Sandvik Smithfield Enterprise Agreement 2014, which was brought before the Fair Work Commission by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The primary dispute concerns whether the agreement adequately meets the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to the procedural fairness and the absence of protected industrial action provisions. The court was tasked with examining the fairness and compliance of the agreement with the relevant legislative provisions.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the agreement was made in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically section 231, which mandates that an enterprise agreement must not contain provisions that are not reasonably appropriate in all the circumstances for the matters they address. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the agreement complied with the procedural fairness requirements under section 230 of the Act. A critical aspect of the dispute was whether the agreement's provisions that effectively prohibit protected industrial action were justifiable under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the agreement was generally fair and appropriate in its terms, notwithstanding the absence of protected industrial action provisions. The Commission held that the procedural fairness requirements were met, as the agreement was the product of genuine bargaining between the parties. However, the Commission noted that while the absence of protected industrial action provisions was a matter of concern, it was not enough to render the agreement unfair. The Commission found that the overall fairness of the agreement, including its benefits and the context in which it was made, outweighed the absence of these provisions. Consequently, the application for approval was granted.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the approval of the Sandvik Smithfield Enterprise Agreement 2014, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the decision. The Commission emphasised that its approval was conditional on the parties adhering to the principles of procedural fairness and the spirit of the Fair Work Act. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are made in a manner that reflects genuine bargaining and are fair and appropriate in their terms.

Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established