Toll Transport Pty Ltd

[2022] FWCA 2419

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Toll Transport Pty Ltd

(AG2022/2159)

Toll Global Logistics (Truganina) and United Workers’ Union Enterprise Agreement 2022

Storage services
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 22 JULY 2022

Application for approval of the Toll Global Logistics (Truganina) and United Workers’ Union Enterprise Agreement 2022

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Toll Global Logistics (Truganina) and United Workers’ Union Enterprise Agreement 2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Toll Transport Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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.

The United 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. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 July 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2026.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Toll Transport Pty Ltd, the applicant sought approval for the Toll Global Logistics (Truganina) and United Workers’ Union Enterprise Agreement 2022. The applicant argued that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, while the respondent, the Transport Workers Union, contended that the agreement was unfair and unreasonable in various respects. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement was procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable. The respondent argued that the agreement was unfair due to inadequate consultation with employees and various substantive issues, including the classification of employees and the provisions for redundancy and leave. The applicant contended that the agreement was procedurally fair as it had been reached through genuine bargaining and that it was substantively fair as it provided for a balanced and equitable resolution of the issues between the parties.

The Commission found that the agreement was procedurally fair as it had been reached through genuine bargaining and that the applicant had made efforts to consult with employees. However, the Commission found that the agreement was substantively unfair due to various issues, including the classification of employees and the provisions for redundancy and leave. The Commission determined that the agreement did not provide for a balanced and equitable resolution of the issues between the parties and that it was not fair and reasonable in all respects. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are both procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable. The Commission found that the applicant had made efforts to consult with employees, but the agreement was ultimately found to be substantively unfair due to various issues. The decision serves as a reminder to parties involved in enterprise bargaining to ensure that agreements are balanced and equitable and that they meet the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established