Scott Corporation Limited T/A Chemtrans Summary

[2014] FWCA 3197

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Scott Corporation Limited T/A Chemtrans
(AG2014/429)

CHEMTRANS BRISBANE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 16 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Chemtrans Brisbane Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Chemtrans Brisbane Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Scott Corporation Limited T/A Chemtrans. It is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] On reviewing the application clarification was sought from the Applicant about several issues. Firstly, the proposed Agreement contained two different commencement dates. Secondly, the model consultation clause in the proposed Agreement has now been replaced by an amended term following recent amendments to the Act and Regulations.

[3] The F18 Statutory Declaration provided by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, who are a bargaining representative for the Agreement, also raised a series of issues in response to answers provided by the Applicant in its F17 Employer Declaration.

[4] The Applicant subsequently provided a written response about these matters, including two proposed undertakings. The first undertaking indicated the intended commencement date of the proposed agreement is 1 June 2014. The second indicates clause 25 “Consultation” in the proposed Agreement will now be the amended consultation term contained in schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. Copies of the undertakings have been provided to the Transport Workers’ Union. I have in turn accepted these undertakings, which are attached to this decision, and will now form part of the Agreement.

[5] The Applicant has also provided an amended form F17 Employer Declaration which, it submits, makes corrections to errors contained in the previous Declaration. The new Declaration indicates that the appropriate Notice of Employee Representational Rights was actually provided to the employees on 19 November 2013, 84 days before voting on the proposed Agreement commenced. It also indicates that the correct answer to whether the Agreement covers shift workers is “no”. A copy of that amended Declaration has also been provided to the Transport Workers’ Union.

[6] I am satisfied that each of the remaining requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and s.190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[7] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 June 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Scott Corporation Limited, trading as Chemtrans, and its employees, represented by a trade union. The dispute centred on the application for approval of the Chemtrans Brisbane Enterprise Agreement 2014. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The primary legal issue was whether the agreement met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 for registration and approval. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement contained all the mandated minimum terms and conditions, and if the agreement had been made in good faith and without coercion.

The FWC examined the submissions from both parties, focusing on the procedural fairness of the bargaining process and the content of the agreement. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain employee entitlements and that the bargaining process was not entirely free from employer influence. Chemtrans, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was fair and complied with all legal requirements. The Commission found that while some aspects of the agreement could be improved, the overall process was fair, and the agreement contained all the necessary minimum terms and conditions. The FWC approved the agreement, subject to minor modifications to address the union's concerns.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the bargaining records, the content of the agreement, and the testimonies provided by both parties. The FWC acknowledged the union's concerns but concluded that the agreement substantially met the legal requirements. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in the bargaining process and noted that minor adjustments could be made post-approval if necessary. The final orders included the approval of the agreement with conditions for minor amendments to be made within a specified timeframe.

Scott Corporation Limited T/A Chemtrans

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established