DECISION

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

Site Services Holdings Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2456)

SITE INNOVATIVE SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 6 MAY 2015

Application for approval of the Site Innovative Services Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Site Innovative Services Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Site Services Holdings Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant 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.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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.

[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement was approved on 6 May 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 May 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Site Services Holdings Pty Ltd is a company that provides services to various clients, and the respondent, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, is the union representing some of its employees. The union sought approval of a proposed enterprise agreement, the Site Innovative Services Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application for approval was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the legal criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement satisfied the "better off overall test" (BOOT) as stipulated in the Act. This test requires that, after the agreement is in force, no employee covered by the agreement must be worse off overall than they would be under their existing terms and conditions of employment. The Commission had to consider the financial implications, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment for employees covered by the agreement. The Commission also needed to determine if the agreement had been made in good faith and without coercion, as required by the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did indeed satisfy the BOOT. It considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that employees would, on balance, be better off under the new agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement had been made in good faith and without coercion, as the union had provided adequate information to its members and there was no evidence of improper influence or pressure. Consequently, the Commission approved the Site Innovative Services Enterprise Agreement 2015, determining that it met the legal criteria for approval under the Act.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission included the approval of the Site Innovative Services Enterprise Agreement 2015, effective from the date of the decision. The agreement was to be registered with the Fair Work Commission and would apply to the employees of Site Services Holdings Pty Ltd as specified in the agreement. The decision was binding on both parties and would govern the terms and conditions of employment for the relevant employees until the agreement was varied or terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Site Services Holdings 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