DECISION

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

Skilled Maritime Services Pty Ltd T/A ATIVO
(AG2015/7789)

ATIVO EAST SWANSTON DOCK (PATRICK) SITE MAINTENANCE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2017

Stevedoring industry
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 21 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the ATIVO East Swanston Dock (Patrick) Site Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ATIVO East Swanston Dock (Patrick) Site Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Skilled Maritime Services Pty Ltd T/A ATIVO.

[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.

[3] I am not satisfied that the Agreement contains a consultation term in the terms of s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Maritime Union of Australia has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1)(a), will operate from 28 January 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2017.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Skilled Maritime Services Pty Ltd trading as ATIVO, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of an enterprise agreement, specifically the ATIVO East Swanston Dock (Patrick) Site Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017. The primary dispute involved whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions and if it was appropriately negotiated. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over matters related to workplace relations and employment agreements.

The key legal issues addressed by the Commission included whether the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable, whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, and if the applicant had followed the correct process in seeking approval. The Commission examined the nature of the negotiations, the fairness of the terms proposed, and the compliance with procedural requirements set out in the Act. Additionally, the Commission considered the impact of the agreement on the workforce and the broader implications for industrial relations.

The Commission found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and had been genuinely negotiated. The applicant demonstrated a thorough negotiation process that involved multiple meetings and discussions with the employees' representatives. The terms of the agreement were considered reasonable and balanced, taking into account the needs of both the employer and the employees. The Commission also noted that the applicant had followed the correct procedural steps in seeking approval of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission approved the ATIVO East Swanston Dock (Patrick) Site Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2015-2017, confirming its compliance with the Fair Work Act.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the enterprise agreement, which would be applicable from the specified commencement date. The agreement was to be registered with the Fair Work Commission and would provide the framework for employment terms and conditions between the applicant and the employees covered by the agreement for the specified period. The Commission's decision ensured that the agreement would operate as intended, providing a stable and fair working environment for the employees.

Skilled Maritime Services Pty Ltd T/A ATIVO

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established