TAD Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 113

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

TAD Pty Ltd
(AG2013/12883)

TAD INDUSTRIAL AND AWU (ONESTEEL LAVERTON NORTH) AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 7 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the TAD Industrial and AWU (OneSteel Laverton North) Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the TAD Industrial and AWU (OneSteel Laverton North) Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by TAD Pty Ltd.

[2] 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.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 14 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TAD Pty Ltd was the applicant in an application before the Fair Work Commission, seeking approval of an enterprise agreement. The applicant, a manufacturer of industrial equipment, entered into an agreement with the Australian Workers’ Union, which represented employees at its Laverton North site. The dispute centred on the approval process of this agreement, which was proposed for a period of three years.

The legal issues in the case involved whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning the negotiation process, the contents of the agreement, and the protections for employees. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employee rights and entitlements, while the employer maintained that the agreement was fairly negotiated and met all statutory requirements.

The Commission found that while the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, it contained provisions that did not align with the protections required by the Fair Work Act. Notably, certain clauses regarding employee entitlements and conditions were deemed insufficient. The Commission further determined that the negotiation process was conducted appropriately, but the content of the agreement failed to meet the standards for fair and reasonable terms. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission ordered that the application be returned to the parties for renegotiation, with specific guidance on addressing the deficiencies identified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established