DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Sun City Security Pty Ltd
(AG2017/208)

SUN CITY SECURITY UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OF 2016

Stevedoring industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 15 FEBRUARY 2017

Application for approval of the Sun City Security Union Collective Agreement of 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sun City Security Union Collective Agreement of 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Sun City Security Pty Ltd T/As Sun City Security. 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 Maritime Union of Australia being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 15 February 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 22 February 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sun City Security Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for approval of the Sun City Security Union Collective Agreement of 2016. The applicant is an employer of security officers, and the respondent is the union representing the employees. The union argued that the agreement did not meet certain requirements, including that it did not provide for a proper process for resolving disputes between employees and the employer. The employer argued that the agreement was lawful and complied with all relevant requirements.

The legal issues before the FWC were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it provided for a proper process for resolving disputes between employees and the employer. The FWC held that the agreement did not provide for a proper process for resolving disputes and therefore did not meet the requirements of the Act. The FWC also held that the agreement did not comply with certain other requirements, including that it did not provide for adequate notice of termination of employment.

The FWC found that the agreement did not provide for a proper process for resolving disputes between employees and the employer. The FWC held that the agreement did not provide for a proper process for resolving disputes because it did not provide for a mechanism for resolving disputes that was fair and effective. The FWC also held that the agreement did not comply with certain other requirements, including that it did not provide for adequate notice of termination of employment. The FWC did not approve the agreement.

The FWC did not approve the agreement and directed the parties to negotiate a new agreement that complied with all relevant requirements. The FWC held that the agreement did not provide for a proper process for resolving disputes between employees and the employer and did not comply with certain other requirements. The FWC directed the parties to negotiate a new agreement that complied with all relevant requirements, including that it provided for a proper process for resolving disputes and adequate notice of termination of employment.

Sun City Security Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established