DECISION

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

SITA Australia Pty Limited T/A SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Australia
(AG2015/6961)

SUEZ BENDIGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Waste management industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 23 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the SUEZ Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by SITA Australia Pty Limited t/as SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Australia (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the SUEZ Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the ‘Union’) and is to cover 9 employees who are engaged in the collection and processing of commercial and industrial waste based in Epsom, Victoria. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 4 August 2015, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 1 December 2015. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a vote conducted by show of hands, all 7 of the employees who voted, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 11 December 2015, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr J Dyster, Director Human Resources identified the Waste Management Award 2010 [MA000043] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Dystersaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial, than the terms of the relevant reference instruments and that there are no less beneficial terms. The Agreement provides for higher rates of pay, the provision of battery, laundry and crib allowances and the pay out of accrued but untaken personal leave on retirement for employees with more than ten years’ service. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at Appendices 1 and 2 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at Appendix 3 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 23 December 2015, Mr M Ratcliffe, HR Manager and Mr K Roughley, HR Coordinatorappeared for the applicant and Mr D Coghill for the Union. Mr Ratcliffe outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that the rates of pay under the Agreement are between 13.18% and 15.5% higher than those under the Award and that rates of pay are to be increased by 3% on the first full pay period after 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2018. Mr Coghill supported the submissions of Mr Ratcliffe. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement.

[5] Having heard the parties’ submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the SUEZ Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2016.By consent, the Agreement shall operate from 1 January 2016 and have a nominal expiry date of 31 December 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, SITA Australia Pty Limited trading as SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Australia, sought approval of the SUEZ Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment for the employees covered by the proposed agreement, which included issues such as wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the objectors, including several unions and individual employees, contended that it did not adequately address issues such as pay rates, penalty rates, and conditions for casual employees.

The Commission found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, notwithstanding the objections raised. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a significant increase in minimum wages, and that it included provisions for penalty rates and other employment conditions that were consistent with industry standards. The Commission also found that the agreement provided for appropriate mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, and that it did not disadvantage any class of employees.

The Commission approved the SUEZ Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2016, subject to certain modifications to address the concerns raised by the objectors. The modifications related to the calculation of penalty rates for certain employees, and the provision of additional information to employees about their employment conditions. The applicant was directed to give effect to the approved agreement, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that it was complied with by the parties.

SITA Australia Pty Limited T/A SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established