Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 2791

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5488)

SYDNEY QUARRY AND HAULAGE GROUP PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2017

Quarrying industry
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 6 MAY 2013

Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 .

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 -2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application has been made by Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 6 March 2013 by the Employer’s representatives, the Master Builders Association of New South Wales (MBANSW). The application included a Statutory Declaration of Louise Cauchi made on behalf of the Employer and dated 26 February 2013, (the Declaration). The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 22 February 2013. Therefore the application was made within the 14 day lodgement time limit established by subsection 185 (3) (a) of the Act.

[3] The application for approval was listed for Hearing on 28 March 2013 at which time Mr N Arends from the MBANSWappeared for the Employer. During the proceeding held on 28 March, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) identified various issues relating to the contents of certain terms contained in the Agreement which required clarification.

[4] Mr Arends provided some important clarifications during the Hearing. The Employer was invited to consider some residual issues raised by the Commission and to respond in writing. The Commission has received correspondence dated 29 April 2013, from the MBANSW, which included further material in support of the application together with Undertakings made by and duly signed by the Employer, and proposed to the Commission pursuant to s.190 of the Act (the Undertakings).

[5] Consequently I have further considered the application for approval having regard for the clarifications provided during the Hearing, the further material in support of the application, and the Undertakings.

[6] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Commission can approve of an enterprise agreement. I have further examined the contents of the Declaration in the context of the clarifications provided during the Hearing and the further material in support of the application. On the basis of this material I am satisfied that the procedural requirements of Part 2-4 of the Act have been met in this instance.

[7] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term at clause 4.5 and a consultation term at clause 10.5.

[8] I am prepared to accept the Undertakings. As provided by s.191 of the Act, the Undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. 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.

[9] The Agreement as varied by the Undertakings is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 13 May 2013. In accordance with clause 3.1.2 of the Agreement as amended by the Undertakings, the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd was a party in a legal dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Sydney Quarry and Haulage Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over enterprise agreements and employment disputes in Australia. The primary issue before the Commission was the interpretation of certain clauses in the Enterprise Agreement, particularly those relating to the classification of employees and the calculation of penalty rates.

The legal issues centred on whether certain employees were correctly classified under the agreement and whether the company had properly applied penalty rates as stipulated in the agreement. The employees argued that they were entitled to higher penalty rates and better classification, while the company maintained that it had adhered to the terms of the Enterprise Agreement. The Commission needed to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant clauses and whether the company had complied with its obligations under the agreement.

The Commission examined the language of the Enterprise Agreement and relevant precedents to interpret the clauses in question. It found that the employees' classifications and the application of penalty rates were correctly handled according to the terms of the agreement. The Commission concluded that the company had acted in accordance with the Enterprise Agreement, dismissing the employees' claims. As a result, the Commission upheld the company's position and ruled against the employees' claims for higher classification and penalty rates. The Commission's decision was final, barring any appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established