SGS Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 5194

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

SGS Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7545)

SGS LAKEFILED ORETEST PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 31 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the SGS Lakefield Oretest Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SGS Lakefield Oretest Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, SGS Australia Pty Ltd, sought approval of an enterprise agreement made with its employees, represented by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU). The agreement was made in relation to the operations of the applicant's ore testing laboratory in Lakefield, Queensland. The Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether the agreement was in the interests of the employees, as well as the employees' employers and the public. The NTEU contested the application, arguing that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement was "fair". The Commission was required to consider whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it provided for a genuine enterprise bargaining process, and whether it included terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as well as their employers and the public. The NTEU argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Act, as it did not provide for adequate consultation and did not include terms that were fair and reasonable.

In determining the matter, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission found that the agreement was made in good faith and that the process of enterprise bargaining was genuine. The Commission also found that the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, and that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as well as their employers and the public. The Commission noted that the agreement included provisions for increased wages, improved working conditions, and better access to training and development opportunities. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties.

The Commission approved the enterprise agreement, finding that it met the requirements of the Act. The agreement was approved on the basis that it provided for a genuine process of enterprise bargaining, and that it included terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for increased wages and improved working conditions, and that it was in the best interests of the employees, as well as their employers and the public. The applicant was granted approval to implement the agreement, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Commission's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established