Strathan Pty Ltd T/A Phoenix Corrosion Control

[2013] FWCA 1287

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Strathan Pty Ltd T/A Phoenix Corrosion Control
(AG2012/8729)

STRATHAN PTY LIMITED TRADING AS PHOENIX CORROSION CONTROL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 28 FEBRUARY 2013

Strathan Pty Ltd Trading As Phoenix Corrosion Control Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Strathan Pty Ltd Trading As Phoenix Corrosion Control Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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.

[3] As the Agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] I had some concerns regarding clause 8 and clause 9 in the Agreement. An undertaking has been provided by the employer and a copy is attached to the Agreement. The bargaining representative for the agreement has indicated his support for the undertaking.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Strathan Pty Ltd T/A Phoenix Corrosion Control, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to resolve a dispute concerning the application and interpretation of an enterprise agreement. The dispute arose between the employer, Strathan Pty Ltd trading as Phoenix Corrosion Control, and its employees who were party to the Enterprise Agreement 2012. The crux of the matter involved whether certain provisions of the agreement were to be construed in a manner that would allow for specific operational changes proposed by the employer. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with interpreting these provisions in light of the employer's business needs and the rights of the employees as enshrined in the agreement.

The primary legal issues before the Fair Work Commission centred on the interpretation of specific clauses within the Enterprise Agreement 2012. The employer argued that certain clauses should be construed in a way that permitted the implementation of operational changes aimed at improving efficiency and profitability. The employees, on the other hand, contended that any changes should not undermine the protections and entitlements afforded to them under the agreement. The Commission was required to determine whether the employer's proposed interpretation of the agreement was consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and the overarching purpose of the Fair Work Act.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission meticulously examined the language of the relevant clauses and the context in which they were negotiated. The Commission found that while the employer had a legitimate interest in seeking operational efficiencies, the proposed changes would have significantly impacted the employees' conditions of employment in a manner not contemplated at the time of the agreement's negotiation. The Commission held that the agreement should be interpreted in a way that upheld the integrity of the negotiated terms and protected the employees' rights. Consequently, the employer's proposed changes were deemed inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the Enterprise Agreement 2012.

The Fair Work Commission ultimately ruled in favour of the employees, affirming the need to maintain the original terms of the agreement. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of good faith bargaining and the necessity of honouring the commitments made during the negotiation process. The final orders mandated that the employer refrain from implementing the proposed operational changes in a manner that would contravene the terms of the Enterprise Agreement 2012.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established