DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise Agreement

Sekkon Group Pty Ltd T/A Sekkon Group
(AG2015/3660)

SEKKON GROUP ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

Security services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 10 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Sekkon Group Enterprise Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sekkon Group Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Sekkon Group Pty Ltd T/A Sekkon Group. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement and is intended to cover employees variously involved in the provision of security and cleaning services, primarily in regional shopping centres located in Queensland.

[2] After reviewing the application and the terms of the proposed Agreement, the Commission sought further clarification from the Applicant about various matters. These included whether the employees intended to be covered by the proposed Agreement can be said to have been “fairly chosen;” the various arrangements proposed for part-time employees; the intended averaging arrangements; as well as various issues associated with the wage rates to apply to different rosters. It was also indicated that the application would be set down for hearing to enable further submissions and evidence to be provided in regard to the above matters, in particular.

[3] The Commission was subsequently provided with a detailed written response from the Applicant’s representative prior to the hearing. Mr David Tuxworth from Livingstones was also granted permission to appear on behalf of the Applicant under s.596(2)(b) of the Act on the basis his involvement would enable the Applicant to be represented more effectively.

[4] The written submissions provided on behalf of the Applicant indicate, firstly, that the proposed Agreement is intended to cover 12 employees, and these are the only employees employed by the Applicant at this time who are involved in the provision of security and cleaning services. Further details about these employees and where they are located was also contained in the written submission.

[5] The submission also addressed the circumstances of those employees engaged on a part-time basis, indicating that the average number of rostered hours worked by these employees is 32, although on occasions additional hours could be worked. The Applicant also proposed to provide additional undertakings in regard to those employees engaged on a part-time basis. The first proposes an undertaking that Security Officers will be entitled to the same overtime entitlements as contained in the underlying Security Services Industry Award 2010. It also undertakes that employees employed on a part-time basis as cleaners will be entitled to the additional loading of 15% contained in the Cleaning Services Award 2010.

[6] The Applicant also proposed to provide an undertaking in regard to a change in the arrangements concerning the averaging of hours which is more closely aligned to that contained in the Security Services Industry Award 2010.

[7] A further proposed undertaking also makes some amendments to the proposed wage rates, acknowledging that employees can be scheduled to work on every second weekend. A further variation also takes account of the increase granted by the recent Minimum Wage Review Decision of the Commission that has application from 1 July of this year. The Applicant also emphasises in its written submissions that there is a significant benefit in the proposed Agreement in that employees are entitled to a 30 minute paid meal break each day. The written submission also contains a range of other comparative information regarding the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Agreement and those contained in the underlying Security Services Industry Award 2010 and the Cleaning Services Award 2010.

[8] I am satisfied that the proposed undertakings do not cause financial detriment to any employee to be covered by the proposed Agreement, and do not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are accordingly accepted. They are attached to this decision, and will now be taken to be a term of the Agreement.

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

[10] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 17 November 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 9 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Sekkon Group Pty Ltd, trading as Sekkon Group, which sought approval of an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is the body responsible for regulating enterprise agreements in Australia. The nature of the dispute was the standard procedural and substantive validity of the agreement, including the assessment of whether it met the requirements of the Act.

The legal issues that the Commission had to decide included whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act, whether the agreement contained matters that were prohibited by the Act, and whether the agreement was in the public interest. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement met the ‘better off overall test’ which requires that employees are not worse off financially by being under the agreement than they would be without it.

The Commission found that the agreement was procedurally valid and that it contained no prohibited matters. It was also found to be in the public interest. The ‘better off overall test’ was met as the Commission found that the employees would be better off under the new agreement than without it. The Commission approved the agreement based on these findings. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet the legal requirements and that they are in the interests of both the employer and the employees.

Sekkon Group Pty Ltd T/A Sekkon Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established