DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Customised Solutions
(AG2017/293)

TOLL CUSTOMISED SOLUTIONS (KMART) AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 9 FEBRUARY 2017

Variation of the Toll Customised Solutions (Kmart) and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 3 February 2017, Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Customised Solutions (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Toll Customised Solutions (Kmart) and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The variation affects the wage rates in cl 20.2 and the allowances in clause 23.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. Since cl 4 has been varied, I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is now 31 July 2017.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Customised Solutions, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with considering a variation to the Toll Customised Solutions (Kmart) and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute centred around whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were consistent with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the union argued that the proposed changes did not meet the statutory requirements for variations, including the need for good faith bargaining and the protection of employees' rights.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the employer had engaged in genuine and meaningful bargaining, whether the proposed changes were fair and reasonable, and whether the changes met the statutory requirements for variation, such as being in the best interests of the employees and providing adequate protection for their rights. The Commission had to determine if the proposed changes could be considered a "minor" variation under the Fair Work Act and if the employer had provided sufficient evidence to support the necessity of these changes.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not engaged in genuine and meaningful bargaining, as it had not provided adequate information to the union and had not considered the union's submissions. The Commission also found that the proposed changes did not meet the statutory requirements for variation, as they did not adequately protect the employees' rights and were not in their best interests. As a result, the Commission rejected the proposed changes and directed the parties to continue with the bargaining process to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of genuine and meaningful bargaining in the enterprise agreement variation process and the need for employers to provide adequate information and consideration to unions. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder that the statutory requirements for enterprise agreement variations must be strictly adhered to, and any proposed changes must adequately protect employees' rights and be in their best interests.

Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Customised Solutions

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established