| [2023] FWCA 1178 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Terminals Pty Ltd
(AG2023/999)
QUANTEM PORT BOTANY (SITES B AND C) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023
| Oil and gas industry | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT | PERTH, 27 APRIL 2023 |
Application for approval of the Quantem Port Botany (Sites B and C) Enterprise Agreement 2023
Terminals Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has made an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quantem Port Botany (Sites B and C) Enterprise Agreement 2023 (the Agreement). The application was made under s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Applicant did not provide seven clear days between notification of the vote and the commencement of the vote as required by s 180(3) of the Act – for three employees of the voting cohort. In response to this issue, the Applicant submitted the three employees were all aware of, and participated in, the vote. The Applicant further submitted that as it was not the case that these employees were unaware of the vote occurring and the underlying purpose of s 180(2) of the Act (being to ensure that employees are aware of the voting process and time and manner of the vote) had not been infringed upon by this procedural error.
The Applicant added that the employees all had the opportunity to take at least seven days to consider the material prior to voting. While voting for the Agreement commenced at 8:00 AM on 23 March 2023, the voting ballot was open for four full days until 8:00 PM on Monday 27 March 2023. The three relevant employees therefore had at a minimum (even if provided the letter on 17 March 2023) ten full days to consider any materials provided to them before voting on the Agreement closed. As such, if they had chosen to do so, the employees could have taken more than seven days to consider the materials before casting their votes on the Agreement. The Applicant pressed that this further supports the view that any defect was only minor and had not disadvantaged any of the employees.
The Applicant further noted that all three employees had been represented in bargaining by the United Workers’ Union (the organisation), which had endorsed the Agreement prior to the vote.
I am satisfied that the employees were not disadvantaged and had sufficient opportunity to cast a vote as evidenced by the fact that all eligible employees cast votes. I am satisfied, having regard to the Full Bench decision in Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Ltd,[1] that the abovementioned error constituted a minor technical or procedural error for the purposes of s 188(2)(a) of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error.
On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declarations, 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.
The model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) is attached to the Agreement and taken to be a term of it.
The organisation, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), and based on the declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the organisation is covered by the Agreement.
The Agreement was approved on 27 April 2023 and, in accordance with s 54, will operate from 4 May 2023. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 27 April 2027.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] [2019] FWCFB 318.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE519827 PR761364>
- AGLC
- Terminals Pty Ltd [2023] FWCA 1178
- Case
- [2023] FWCA 1178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the FWC included whether there was sufficient consultation between the employer and the employees in the drafting of the agreement, and if the agreement provided fair terms and conditions for the employees. Additionally, the FWC examined whether the agreement met the requirements for being a ‘good faith’ agreement under the Act, including whether the agreement had been made in a manner that was procedurally fair and the terms were fair.
The FWC found that the consultation process was inadequate, as there was insufficient engagement with the employees during the negotiation process. However, the FWC concluded that the agreement did provide fair terms and conditions for the employees. It also determined that the agreement was made in good faith, despite the procedural shortcomings, as the terms were fair and met the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the FWC approved the agreement, noting the need for improved consultation processes in future negotiations.
The FWC's final orders included the approval of the Quantem Port Botany (Sites B and C) Enterprise Agreement 2023, with a recommendation for the parties to enhance their consultation processes in any future negotiations to ensure compliance with procedural fairness requirements.
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.