The Australian Workers’ Union

[2013] FWCA 3371

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

The Australian Workers’ Union
(AG2013/1197)

LOGICAL PROPERTY SERVICES PTY LTD AND AWU PORTLAND ALUMINIUM ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 28 MAY 2013

Application for approval of the Logical Property Services Pty Ltd and AWU Portland Aluminium Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Logical Property Services Pty Ltd and AWU Portland Aluminium Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU).The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union, 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 s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 4 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union filed an application for the approval of the Logical Property Services Pty Ltd and AWU Portland Aluminium Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016. The applicant union sought approval of the agreement under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the provisions of the agreement and whether they complied with the relevant legislative requirements. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agreement was a simple, low-risk agreement as defined in the Fair Work Act, and thus eligible for registration without a vote. The court had to examine the provisions of the agreement, including its coverage, duration, and the rights and obligations of the parties. Additionally, the court had to determine if the agreement met the criteria for a low-risk agreement, such as not providing for wages below the applicable award or registered agreement and not reducing the entitlements of employees.

In its decision, the commission found that the agreement was a low-risk agreement and met the statutory requirements for approval. The commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that aligned with the award, did not provide for wages below the minimum rate, and did not reduce the entitlements of employees. The commission also considered the bargaining process and found that the agreement had been made in good faith. Consequently, the commission approved the agreement, and it came into effect on the specified date.

No further orders were made by the commission. The approval of the agreement meant that it would now govern the employment conditions of the relevant employees, and the terms and conditions set out in the agreement would take precedence over any inconsistent terms in the applicable award. The decision was a victory for the union, as it ensured that the employees would benefit from the agreed-upon terms and conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established