[2014] FWCA 4036
DECISION
| Fair Work Act 2009 |
| s.185—Enterprise agreement |
| Stawell Gold Mines Pty Ltd |
| (AG2014/5813) |
STAWELL GOLD MINES PTY LTD 2013 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT
Mining industry
| COMMISSIONER LEWIN | MELBOURNE, 18 JUNE 2014 |
Application for approval of the Stawell Gold Mines Pty Ltd 2013 Enterprise Agreement.
[1] An application has been made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for
approval of an Enterprise Agreement known as the Stawell Gold Mines Pty Ltd 2013
Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the
Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was filed on 24 April 2014 by Mr Con Deftereos, from Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA), a representative for Stawell Gold Mines Pty Ltd (Stawell). The Agreement is a single Enterprise Agreement.
[2] An F17 Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of an
Enterprise Agreement was filed by Mr Harry Murray, HR & OHST Manager, Stawell.
[3] The Agreement was listed for e-hearing, in chambers before me at 2:30pm on
Monday, 16 June 2014.
[4] I have provided the Employee Bargaining Representatives listed in the application with the opportunity to indicate whether they wished to be heard in the matter. In the absence of any person indicating that they wished to be heard, the matter was not listed for an attendance hearing.
[5] 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.
[2014] FWCA 4036
[6] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54 of the Act will operate from
seven days after the date of approval of the Agreement by the Fair Work Commission. The
nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 25 September 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE408647 PR552159>
- AGLC
- Stawell Gold Mines Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 4036
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 4036
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission examined whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Act concerning good faith bargaining, coverage, and the inclusion of specific terms. The union argued that the agreement failed to meet the good faith bargaining requirement, as it was not negotiated in a genuine attempt to reach an agreement. The union also contended that certain terms of the agreement were not consistent with the provisions of the Act. The Commission considered whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for employees and whether it complied with the mandatory minimum standards set out in the Act.
After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did not meet the good faith bargaining requirement. The Commission noted that the company had not genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the union and that the agreement contained terms that were not consistent with the Act. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The union's application for approval was dismissed, and the agreement remained non-binding.
No further orders were made by the Commission. The refusal to approve the agreement meant that it could not be enforced as a legally binding contract between the parties. The employees would continue to be governed by the terms of the previous enterprise agreement until a new agreement was negotiated and approved by the Commission.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.