SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 900

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd
(AG2013/4722)

SEAROAD SHIPPING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (STEVEDORING) 2011

Stevedoring industry
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON	SYDNEY, 7 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the SeaRoad Shipping Enterprise Agreement (Stevedoring) 2011.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SeaRoad Shipping Enterprise Agreement (Stevedoring) 2011 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[4] The Maritime 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.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 7 February 2013 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 May 2014.

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd applied for the Fair Work Commission to approve the SeaRoad Shipping Enterprise Agreement (Stevedoring) 2011. The respondents to the application were the Maritime Union of Australia and the SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd. The application involved the approval of an enterprise agreement under section 174 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement met the requirements of section 232 of the Fair Work Act, including whether the agreement contained the prescribed terms and whether it was in the best interests of the employees covered by the agreement.

The Commission found that the agreement contained the prescribed terms and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a number of benefits for employees, including pay rates, leave entitlements, and other conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the agreement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the economic circumstances of the employer and the need to maintain and improve productivity, efficiency and profitability. The Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to ensure that it complied with the Fair Work Act.

The modifications included changes to the provisions relating to the calculation of overtime and penalty rates, as well as changes to the provisions relating to the use of casual employees. The modified agreement was approved by the Commission and registered with the Fair Work Commission. The registration of the agreement means that it is now a legally binding contract between the employer and the employees covered by the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established