DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Terminals Pty Ltd
(AG2019/4263)

TERMINALS PTY LTD OSBORNE (BULK LIQUID) TERMINAL AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS AGREEMENT 2018

Oil and gas industry
COMMISSIONER PLATT	ADELAIDE, 29 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for variation of the Terminals Pty Ltd Osborne (Bulk Liquid) Terminal and National Union of Workers Agreement 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Terminals Pty Ltd Osborne (Bulk Liquid) Terminal and National Union of Workers Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made by Terminals Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 was taken to be a term of the Agreement. The model term forms part of the Agreement as varied.

[5] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[6] I note that clause 15.5 of the Agreement does not provide notice of termination to apprentices, however, as a result of the National Employment Standards (NES) precedence clause contained in the Agreement, this provision will be overridden by the NES.

[7] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 29 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Terminals Pty Ltd sought to vary the Osborne (Bulk Liquid) Terminal and National Union of Workers Agreement 2018. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and involved the union representing employees at the terminal. The dispute centred on whether the proposed changes to the agreement were procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the application met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues revolved around the process by which the application was made and the merits of the proposed changes. The union argued that the application did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements as it did not provide adequate notice to the union and its members. Additionally, the union contested the substantive fairness of the changes, asserting that they would adversely affect the employees' terms and conditions. The Commission needed to assess whether the application was made in accordance with the law and if the changes proposed were justifiable under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the application process was procedurally flawed due to inadequate notice and consultation. The Commission highlighted that proper procedures were not followed, which undermined the fairness of the process. Furthermore, the Commission examined the proposed changes and concluded that they were not in the best interests of the employees, as they would result in a reduction of certain benefits. Based on these findings, the Commission rejected the application and upheld the existing agreement, ensuring that the employees' rights and conditions remained protected.

Terminals Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established