Skilled Group Ltd

[2014] FWCA 133

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Skilled Group Ltd
(AG2013/10436)

SKILLED RAIL SERVICES LOCOMOTIVE OPERATORS AGREEMENT 2013

Mining industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 8 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Skilled Rail Services Locomotive Operators Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Skilled Rail Services Locomotive Operators Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Skilled Group Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 15 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 January 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Skilled Group Ltd sought approval of the Skilled Rail Services Locomotive Operators Agreement 2013. The application was brought by the company, and the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, and the Australian Rail and Maritime Transport Officers' Union opposed it. The dispute centred on whether the agreement, which outlined terms and conditions for locomotive operators employed by the company, complied with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The main legal issues before the commission were whether the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement, if it met the requirements for coverage and representation, and if the agreement's terms and conditions were fair and reasonable. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately represent the employees, that it did not meet the coverage and representation requirements, and that certain terms were unfair.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the commission found that the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement that met the coverage and representation requirements. The commission also found that, while some terms of the agreement were not entirely fair, they were reasonable in the circumstances. The commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the unions' concerns. The company was directed to implement the modified agreement within a specified timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established