Sicame Australia Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3149

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Sicame Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/966)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

SYDNEY, 15 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the SICAME AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013/2016 - refusal.

[1] Sicame Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant) lodged an application on 28 April 2014, pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) seeking approval of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an Enterprise Agreement entitled the SICAME AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013/2016 (the Agreement).

[2] The Agreement is proposed to operate until 1 July 2016.

[3] Attached to the application was a Notice of Employee Representational Rights dated 21 June 2013.

[4] Section 174 of the Act, in particular subsection (1A), provides that the Notice must contain the content prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (the Regulations), not contain any other content, and be in the form prescribed by the Regulations. Schedule 2.1 of the Regulations contains the Notice template. Any notice which modifies either the content or the form of the Notice template goes to invalidity. The Commission cannot ratify any such agreement.

[5] A Full Bench of the Commission in Peabody Moorvale Pty Ltd v CFMEU[2014] FWCFB 2042 has recently confirmed this principle.

[6] Accordingly, I decline to approve the Agreement.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sicame Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the SICAME AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013/2016. The application was opposed by the Fair Work Ombudsman, who argued that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The matter was heard by the Commission in the Fair Work Division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the enterprise agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The court had to consider the fairness of the agreement, the balance of rights and obligations, and the overall impact on the employees. The court also had to consider the views of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the parties involved in the dispute.

The Commission found that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The agreement contained provisions that were not fair and reasonable, and the balance of rights and obligations was not appropriate. The court found that the agreement did not adequately protect the employees' rights and interests. The court also considered the views of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the parties involved in the dispute, and found that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The application for approval of the enterprise agreement was therefore refused.

The court's final orders were that the application for approval of the SICAME AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013/2016 was refused. The court found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was not in the best interests of the employees. The court also ordered that the application fees be paid by Sicame Australia Pty Ltd.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established