DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

SITA Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/5335)

SUEZ PERTH INDUSTRIAL SERVICES GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2015

Waste management industry
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 4 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the SUEZ Perth Industrial Services Greenfields Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the SUEZ Perth Industrial Services Greenfields Agreement 2015 (Agreement). The application was made by SITA Australia Pty Ltd pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[2] This is a greenfields agreement that meets the requirements of section 172(2)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that Transport Workers’ Union of Australia are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[3] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act I note the Agreement was made with Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 11 November 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of SITA Australia Pty Ltd, the primary focus was the application for the approval of the SUEZ Perth Industrial Services Greenfields Agreement 2015. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the proposed agreement met the necessary standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was brought forth by SITA Australia Pty Ltd, a company seeking to implement new workplace agreements for its employees. The crux of the dispute was whether the proposed agreement adhered to the legislative requirements and adequately protected the employees' rights.

The key legal issues the court was required to decide revolved around the validity and fairness of the proposed agreement. Central to these considerations was the question of whether the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were no less favourable than the applicable award or registered agreement. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the agreement met the procedural requirements under the Act, including whether it had been subject to a genuine process of bargaining and whether the employees had been adequately informed of their rights and the implications of the proposed agreement.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that the proposed agreement did not meet the necessary standards for approval. The court found that the agreement failed to provide for terms and conditions that were no less favourable than the relevant award, particularly in relation to penalty rates and other entitlements. Moreover, the court determined that there were procedural deficiencies in the bargaining process, which undermined the validity of the agreement. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements are both substantively and procedurally sound to be approved by the Fair Work Commission.

SITA 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