The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 2007

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/4023)

THE NUANCE GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED CENTRAL BOND WAREHOUSE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON	MELBOURNE, 27 MARCH 2014

Application for approval of The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Limited Central Bond Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Limited Central Bond Warehouse 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 the Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 3 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 April 2017.

[4] The National Union of Workers, 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), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Ltd, represented by the employer, and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, acting on behalf of employees, were involved in an application for approval of the Central Bond Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2014. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President A. J. Smith. The central issue before the court was whether the agreement met the requirements for an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the agreement contained provisions that would be contrary to the public interest, whether it was made in good faith and whether it was appropriately certified as a simple or low-complexity agreement.

The court examined the arguments from both parties, focusing on the good faith requirement under section 233 of the Fair Work Act. The employer argued that the agreement was made in good faith, while the union contended that there were procedural irregularities. The court found that while there were some procedural issues, these did not undermine the overall good faith of the agreement's creation. The court also considered whether the agreement contained provisions that would be contrary to the public interest, ultimately concluding that it did not. The certification of the agreement as a simple or low-complexity agreement was also deemed appropriate, given the nature of the provisions and the process followed.

In conclusion, the court approved the Central Bond Warehouse Enterprise Agreement 2014. The Deputy President found that the agreement met the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act, including being made in good faith and not being contrary to the public interest. The procedural issues raised by the union did not sufficiently impact the overall validity of the agreement. The court's decision to approve the agreement ensures that it will be implemented and that the terms of employment for the relevant employees will be governed by this agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established