Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 9474

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd
(AG2013/10087)

SNEATHS HOXTON PARK SYDNEY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER CARGILL	SYDNEY, 5 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Sneaths Hoxton Park Sydney Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sneaths Hoxton Park Sydney Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 14 November 2013.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Transport Workers’ 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, will operate from 12 December 2013. The nominal expiry date is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Sneaths Hoxton Park Sydney Enterprise Agreement 2013, which was intended to regulate employment conditions for drivers and other employees. The application was opposed by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which argued that the agreement did not comply with certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by Deputy President D’Abbs, who was required to determine whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Act.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the agreement contained all the mandated terms and conditions, whether it was made in good faith, and whether it had been appropriately negotiated. The Transport Workers Union of Australia contended that the agreement was deficient in several respects, including the absence of a clause addressing the payment of overtime, and the failure to provide for adequate notice periods for termination of employment. Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was comprehensive and had been negotiated in good faith.

After considering the evidence and submissions, Deputy President D’Abbs found that the agreement did not contain all the mandated terms and conditions, as required by section 231 of the Act. The Deputy President held that the agreement was deficient in several respects, including the absence of provisions addressing overtime and notice periods for termination. The Deputy President also found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, but that this did not overcome the deficiencies identified. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.

No orders were made as the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed. The parties were directed to negotiate a new agreement that complied with the requirements of the Act.

Sneaths Freightlines Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established