Superharmonious Pty Ltd T/A Guidance Road Management

Case [2013] FWC 5136


[2013] FWC 5136

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION



Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Superharmonious Pty Ltd T/A Guidance Road Management
(AG2013/1451)

COMMISSIONER MACDONALD

SYDNEY, 30 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Guidance Road Management Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement - section 181(2) - application rejected.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Guidance Road Management Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Superharmonious Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] Part 2-4 of the Act includes procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) can approve of an enterprise agreement. One of these procedural requirements is specified by s.181 of the Act which states as follows:

    “181 Employers may request employees to approve a proposed enterprise agreement

      (1) An employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement may request the employees employed at the time who will be covered by the agreement to approve the agreement by voting for it.

      (2) The request must not be made until at least 21 days after the day on which the last notice under subsection 173(1) (which deals with giving notice of employee representational rights) in relation to the agreement is given.

      (3) Without limiting subsection (1), the employer may request that the employees vote by ballot or by an electronic method.”

[3] As can be seen from subsection 181 (2), a period of at least 21 days must elapse after the last Notice of Representational Rights is given, before any voting to approve an agreement is made. Thus, the date on which the last Notice of Representational Rights is given, is not a date included in the 21 days period criterion. The earliest date that voting can take place is on the 22nd day after the date that the last Notice of Representational Rights is given.

[4] The enterprise agreement application was accompanied by the Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Enterprise Agreement (Form F17 and Employer’s Declaration). Paragraph 2.8 of Form F17 advised that the date on which the last Notice of Representational Rights was given to an employee, who will be covered by the Agreement, was 20 May 2013. A copy of the Notice of Representational Rights was not attached to the Employer’s Declaration.

[5] Paragraph 2.8 also advises that the date on which voting commenced was 27 May and the date on which the voting concluded was 30 May 2013. Thus, the lapse of time between the giving of the Notice of Representational Rights (20 May) and the request by the applicant to vote for the approval of the Agreement (27 May) is only a lapse period of six days (having excluded 20 May and 27 May for counting purposes) and falls well short of the 21 day lapse period required by s.181(2).

[6] My office wrote to the applicant on 25 June advising that the enterprise agreement application could not be approved because of the mandatory statutory requirement of a lapse of 21 days. That correspondence also advised of the absence of the Notice of Representational Rights. There was no response to this email correspondence.

[7] Follow up email correspondence from my office to the applicant was also dispatched on 12 July but to no avail.

[8] The correspondence of 25 June out of my office also raised issues with the enterprise agreement application, as to whether it would pass the Better Off Overall Test - that is, the existing and future employees may not be Better Off Overall under this proposed enterprise agreement.

[9] On the basis of paragraph 2.8 of the Employer’s Declaration, the voting for the enterprise agreement commenced earlier than that permitted by s.181 of the Act.

[10] Accordingly, I dismiss the application for approval of the Agreement.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR539493>

Details
AGLC
Superharmonious Pty Ltd T/A Guidance Road Management [2013] FWC 5136
Case
[2013] FWC 5136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Superharmonious Pty Ltd, trading as Guidance Road Management, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an enterprise agreement. The applicant and the respondents, including various unions, sought to have the agreement approved under the Fair Work Act 2009. The nature of the dispute was centred around the validity and appropriateness of the proposed agreement in terms of its compliance with the statutory requirements and provisions of the Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement met the criteria outlined in section 181(2) of the Fair Work Act, specifically focusing on whether it contained the necessary protections and provisions for employees, and whether it had been fairly and properly negotiated. The court had to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Act.

In examining the agreement, the court found several deficiencies. Notably, it was determined that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employee entitlements and conditions. Furthermore, the court concluded that the negotiation process did not adhere to the requirements of fairness and good faith as mandated by the Act. Based on these findings, the court rejected the application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The court's decision was grounded in the need to ensure that agreements negotiated between employers and employees met the standards set by the Fair Work Act to protect employees' rights and interests.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for approval of the Guidance Road Management Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement was rejected. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of compliance with both procedural and substantive requirements in enterprise agreements to safeguard the interests of employees.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.