DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Sheppard Cycles Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2018/4779)

SHEPPARD CYCLES AUSTRALIA WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018 - 2021

Storage services
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 6 FEBRUARY 2019

Application for approval of the Sheppard Cycles Australia Warehouse Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sheppard Cycles Australia Warehouse Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Sheppard Cycles Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I note that the employer’s statutory declaration in support of the application for approval of an enterprise agreement (F17) indicates that employees were notified of the time, place and method of the vote on 15 August 2018. The vote commenced less than seven clear days later, on 22 August 2018. Also relevant is the fact that the F17 states that 13 employees will be covered by the Agreement and 10 employees cast a valid vote. In Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Ors v CBI Constructors Pty Ltd 1, the Full Bench confirmed that an employer must take all reasonable steps to notify relevant employees of the time, place and method of the vote at least seven clear days before the commencement of the vote, pursuant to s.180 (3) of the Act. Although it does not appear that employees were notified of the time, place and method of the vote seven clear days before the commencement of the vote, I refer to s.188 (2) of the Act and am satisfied that this error constitutes a minor procedural error, and that employees covered by this agreement are not likely to be disadvantaged as a result of the error.2

[3] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 13 February 2019. The nominal expiry date of the 3 July 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

1 [2018] FWCFB 2732.

2 Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others [2019] FWCFB 318.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Sheppard Cycles Australia Pty Ltd sought approval of the Sheppard Cycles Australia Warehouse Employees Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the respondent raised concerns about the agreement's terms and conditions. The case involved a dispute over the legality, fairness, and reasonableness of the agreement, with the respondent raising objections to certain provisions. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, and whether it was free from coerced conduct. The respondent argued that the agreement did not provide for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions and that it was the product of coerced conduct. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the agreement provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions and that it was not the product of coerced conduct. The Commission found that the agreement met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009, and that it was fair and reasonable.

The Commission found that the agreement provided for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, and that it was not the product of coerced conduct. The Commission rejected the respondent's argument that the agreement did not provide for a safety net of minimum wages and conditions, finding that the agreement provided for minimum wages and conditions that were no less favourable than those provided for in the relevant awards. The Commission also found that the agreement was not the product of coerced conduct, rejecting the respondent's argument that the applicant had engaged in unfair labour practices during the bargaining process. The Commission approved the agreement, finding that it was fair and reasonable and met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

Sheppard Cycles Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established