DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Sita Coaches Pty Ltd T/A Sita Coaches
(AG2016/7002)

SITA COACHES (SCHOOL BUS EMPLOYEES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Passenger vehicle transport (non rail) industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 6 JANUARY 2017

Application for approval of the Sita Coaches (School Bus Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sita Coaches (School Bus Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Sita Coaches Pty Ltd T/A Sita Coaches. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 6 January 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 January 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sita Coaches Pty Ltd trading as Sita Coaches, the Fair Work Commission was asked to approve the Sita Coaches (School Bus Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2016. The applicants, Sita Coaches, sought approval of the agreement which would apply to its employees who operate school buses. The dispute arose as the agreement was challenged by the Australian Education Union (AEU) on various grounds, including its compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and its fairness to employees.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act and whether it was fair and reasonable in terms of the rights, obligations, and entitlements of the employees. The Commission had to consider if the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement, if it was made in good faith, and if it contained the required minimum terms and conditions. The AEU argued that the agreement failed to provide adequate protections for employees, particularly regarding pay rates, conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Commission found that the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement, made in good faith, and contained the required minimum terms and conditions. It determined that the agreement was fair and reasonable considering the specific circumstances of the enterprise and its employees. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, taking into account the unique nature of the school bus industry and the need for flexibility in scheduling. The Commission approved the agreement, finding that it met the legislative requirements and was fair and reasonable for the employees.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Sita Coaches (School Bus Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2016, effective from the date of the decision. The Commission's decision was based on its determination that the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement, made in good faith, and contained the required minimum terms and conditions. The Commission also found that the agreement was fair and reasonable for the employees, considering the specific circumstances of the enterprise and the industry.

Sita Coaches Pty Ltd T/A Sita Coaches

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established