Steinhoff Asia Pacific Limited Summary

[2014] FWCA 2546

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Steinhoff Asia Pacific Limited
(AG2014/5185)

UNITRANS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Unitrans Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Unitrans Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Steinhoff Asia Pacific Limited (the Applicant). 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer however taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association 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 22 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Steinhoff Asia Pacific Limited sought approval for the Unitrans Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. This agreement outlined the terms and conditions of employment for certain employees of Unitrans, a subsidiary of Steinhoff. The Fair Work Commission had previously approved the agreement but it required further approval under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Unitrans and its employees contested the application on the grounds that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether the application for approval was valid and whether the agreement satisfied the statutory criteria for approval. Key issues included whether the agreement provided for the proper negotiation process, if it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions, and if it aligned with the objectives of the Act. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and if it complied with the procedural fairness principles.

The court found that the application was valid and the agreement met the statutory criteria for approval. It concluded that the negotiation process was proper and the agreement contained all the required minimum terms and conditions. The court also determined that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and complied with procedural fairness. Therefore, the application for approval was granted.

The court ordered that the Unitrans Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision allowed the agreement to come into effect and bind the parties involved, providing a clear framework for the employment relationship between Unitrans and its employees.

Steinhoff Asia Pacific Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established