| [2017] FWCA 2857 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Thiess Pty Ltd
(AG2017/1655)
THIESS CURRAGH MINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017
Mining industry | |
COMMISSIONER GREGORY | MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2017 |
Application for approval of the Thiess Curragh Mine Enterprise Agreement 2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Thiess Curragh Mine Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Thiess 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] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) 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.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 31 May 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2020.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE424456 PR593179>
- AGLC
- Thiess Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 2857
- Case
- [2017] FWCA 2857
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Commission involved whether the proposed agreement was consistent with the "better off overall test" under the Fair Work Act. This test requires that an employee be no worse off financially under the terms of the enterprise agreement compared to their previous conditions. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees in terms of working conditions, leave entitlements, and other benefits. Furthermore, the Commission examined whether the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of both the employer and the employees.
After examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission concluded that the proposed enterprise agreement did not meet the "better off overall test." The Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement would result in employees being worse off financially than under their previous conditions. Additionally, the Commission determined that the agreement did not sufficiently protect employees' rights and benefits in various areas. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the enterprise agreement.
The Commission's decision was based on its assessment that the proposed agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The refusal to approve the agreement was a significant outcome, as it meant that the existing enterprise agreement would remain in force, preserving the rights and conditions of employees as they had been prior to the proposed changes. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements provide fair and reasonable terms for all parties involved.
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.