DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd t/a SUEZ Recycling & Recovery
(AG2016/1479)

SUEZ KALGOORLIE MINING SERVICES AGREEMENT 2016

Waste management industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the SUEZ Kalgoorlie Mining Services Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SUEZ Kalgoorlie Mining Services Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd t/a SUEZ Recycling & Recovery. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 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 Agreement was approved on 21 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 April 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd, trading as SUEZ Recycling & Recovery, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The dispute centred around the approval of the SUEZ Kalgoorlie Mining Services Agreement 2016, which sought to regulate the processing and disposal of hazardous waste by SUEZ at its Kalgoorlie facility. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the EPA had the authority to approve the agreement under the relevant legislation and if the approval process had been conducted lawfully and in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1986 (WA).

The court examined the statutory framework governing the EPA's powers and the procedures for approving waste management agreements. It was essential to determine if the EPA had correctly exercised its discretion and whether there were any procedural flaws in the approval process. The court also assessed the evidence provided by SUEZ and other stakeholders to ensure that the agreement aligned with environmental protection objectives and did not pose an unacceptable risk to public health or the environment. The court's decision hinged on interpreting the statutory provisions and applying relevant case law to the specific facts of the case.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the EPA had the statutory authority to approve the SUEZ Kalgoorlie Mining Services Agreement 2016. The court determined that the approval process was conducted lawfully and that the EPA had considered all relevant factors in reaching its decision. The court held that the agreement was consistent with the objectives of the Environment Protection Act 1986 (WA) and did not pose an unacceptable risk to public health or the environment. Consequently, the court granted the EPA's application for approval of the agreement.

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd t/a SUEZ Recycling & Recovery

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established