DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Stramit Corporation Pty Limited T/A Stramit Building Products
(AG2015/658)

STRAMIT BUILDING PRODUCTS COFFS HARBOUR (NSW) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	BRISBANE, 24 APRIL 2015

Application for approval of the Stramit Building Products Coffs Harbour (NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Stramit Building Products Coffs Harbour (NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Stramit Corporation Pty Limited, trading as Stramit Building Products. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 1 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Stramit Corporation Pty Limited, trading as Stramit Building Products, applied for approval of the Stramit Building Products Coffs Harbour (NSW) Enterprise Agreement 2015. The application followed the parties' submission of the agreement for approval, which was entered into under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from negotiations between the employer and the employees’ representative, the Building, Construction, Engineering, Mining and Energy Union (the Union). The agreement, if approved, would apply to employees of Stramit Corporation Pty Limited at their Coffs Harbour workplace.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the agreement was in writing, contained only matters that could be the subject of an enterprise agreement, was made by an authorised bargaining representative, was genuinely negotiated, and complied with the good faith bargaining obligations. The Union argued that the agreement did not meet these criteria, asserting that the employer had not genuinely negotiated with the Union.

The Commission found that the agreement was in writing and contained only matters that could be the subject of an enterprise agreement. However, it concluded that the employer had not genuinely negotiated with the Union, as evidenced by the employer's failure to provide the Union with access to relevant information and its unilateral imposition of terms. The Commission held that the employer's actions did not meet the good faith bargaining obligations under the Act. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.

Stramit Corporation Pty Limited T/A Stramit Building Products

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established