Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 5654

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6956)

TEEKAY SHIPPING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA VALIANT II ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Maritime industry
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 19 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd Maritime Union of Australia Valiant II Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd Maritime Union of Australia Valiant II Enterprise Agreement 2014(the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 28 July 2014. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Grant Lawton Hardie dated 17 June 2014 and made on behalf of the Employer (the Declaration). The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 8 June 2014. Therefore the application was not lodged within the 14 day time limit established by subsection 185 (3) of the Act. However, in the circumstances where an explanation for the late lodgement has been provided, I have decided to exercise the discretion provided by subsection 185 (3) (b) of the Act and extend time accordingly.

[3] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) can approve of an enterprise agreement. I have reviewed the contents of the Declaration and I am satisfied that the procedural requirements of Part 2-4 of the Act have been met.

[4] The application included Undertakings dated 25 July 2014, made by and duly signed by the Employer, and proposed to the Commission pursuant to s.190 of the Act (the Undertakings). Consequently I have further considered the application for approval having regard for the Undertakings.

[5] The application for approval was listed for Hearing in Chambers before the Commission on 19 August 2014. I note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of Adam Jacka made on behalf of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), as an employee organisation in relation to the application.

[6] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term at clause 5 and a consultation term at clause 25.

[7] 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.

[8] The MUA, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by subsection 201 (2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the MUA.

[9] The Agreement as varied by the Undertakings is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act it will operate from 26 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement as specified in clause 3.1 of the Agreement, is 31 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The dispute involved Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd, an employer, and the Maritime Union of Australia, a trade union representing employees on the vessel Valiant II. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the primary issue was the approval of the Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd Maritime Union of Australia Valiant II Enterprise Agreement 2014. The union sought approval of the agreement, which outlined terms and conditions for the employees working on the vessel, while Teekay Shipping argued that certain provisions of the agreement were not fair and reasonable.

The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether it was made in good faith. The union argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while Teekay Shipping contended that certain provisions were not in line with the statutory requirements. The court had to weigh the arguments presented by both parties and make a decision based on the evidence and the applicable legal framework.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the overall fairness of the agreement and the extent to which it complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval due to certain provisions that were not fair and reasonable. These provisions were found to be in breach of the statutory requirements, as they did not adequately address the interests of the employees. Consequently, the Fair Work Commission refused to approve the agreement. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles, with the outcome being that the agreement was not approved due to its failure to meet the statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established