Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 902

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd
(AG2012/14517)

TRAFMAN SOLUTION PTY LTD AND AWU TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 2012 TO 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 7 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Trafman Solution Pty Ltd and AWU Traffic Management Agreement 2012 to 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Trafman Solution Pty Ltd and AWU Traffic Management Agreement 2012 to 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 6 February 2013 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 13 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 5 February 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE899789 PR533926>
ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of its enterprise agreement with the Australian Workers' Union for the period 2012 to 2015. The AWU opposed the application, contending that the agreement failed to meet the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AWU argued that the agreement did not meet the requirement that it be "in writing", and that it did not include sufficient information about the parties, the terms of the agreement, and the process by which it was made.

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. In particular, the Commission considered whether the agreement was in writing and whether it contained sufficient information about the parties, the terms of the agreement, and the process by which it was made. The Commission noted that the agreement was signed by authorised representatives of both parties, and that it contained detailed provisions relating to wages and conditions of employment. However, the Commission also noted that the agreement did not include a statement of the parties' bargaining positions, nor did it set out the process by which the agreement was negotiated.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission held that the agreement was not in writing because it did not include a statement of the parties' bargaining positions or the process by which the agreement was negotiated. The Commission rejected Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd's argument that the absence of these details did not matter because the agreement contained detailed provisions relating to wages and conditions of employment. The Commission held that the absence of these details meant that the agreement did not provide sufficient information about the process by which it was made, and therefore did not meet the statutory requirements for approval.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd's application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment, and that it be re-submitted for approval once it met the statutory requirements for approval under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Trafman Solutions Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established