Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWCA 1562


[2016] FWCA 1562
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2016/313)

SWIRE PACIFIC SHIP MANAGEMENT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ENGINEERS MARITIME OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Maritime industry

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 10 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd Engineers Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] On 16 February 2016, Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd made application for approval of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd Engineers Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The Agreement was made following a ballot on 3 February 2016.

[3] The Fair Work Commission (Commission) must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section, s.187 and s.188 are met.

[4] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186, 187 and 188, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[5] I note that proposed subclause 10.5(a) does not meet the requirements of s.203(6)(a) of the FW Act. Consequently, pursuant to s.202(4) of the FW Act, the model flexibility term is taken to be a term of the Agreement and is attached to the Agreement.

[6] The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE) has declared that the AIMPE was a bargaining representative for the Agreement and is entitled to represent the industrial interests of those employees in accordance with paragraph 176(1)(b) of the FW Act. Further, the AIMPE supports the approval of the Agreement by the Commission and has read and agrees with the Employer’s statutory declaration in support of the application, insofar as it is within the Union’s knowledge. Finally, the AIMPE has given notice that, pursuant to s.183 of the FW Act, it wants to be covered by the Agreement.

[7] The Agreement is approved and will, in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act, operate from 17 March 2016.

[8] The nominal expiry date of this Agreement is 9 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE418181  PR577909>

Details
AGLC
Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 1562
Case
[2016] FWCA 1562
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Swire Pacific Ship Management (Australia) Pty Ltd Engineers Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016. The company sought to have the agreement registered as a single interest employer agreement under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it contained the mandatory terms as required by the Act. The company argued that the agreement was the product of good faith bargaining and that it included all the mandatory terms, while the union contended that certain provisions were unfair and did not reflect genuine negotiations.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the bargaining process that led to the agreement. It found that the agreement was made in good faith and contained the mandatory terms as required by the Act. The Commission noted that the company had provided evidence of a genuine and comprehensive bargaining process, and that the union had not demonstrated that the agreement was unfair or had not been negotiated in good faith. The Commission also found that the agreement included all the mandatory terms, including provisions on wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. The union's arguments that certain provisions were unfair were rejected as the Commission found that they were reasonable and in line with industry standards.

Following its decision, the Commission approved the agreement and registered it as a single interest employer agreement. The company was authorised to implement the agreement, and it became binding on the employees covered by the agreement. The union's objections were dismissed, and the agreement was registered as a valid enterprise agreement. This decision provided certainty to the parties and ensured that the agreement was implemented in a fair and transparent manner. The Commission's decision was a significant outcome for the company and demonstrated its commitment to providing a safe and productive workplace for its 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.