Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited

[2013] FWCA 2334

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited
(AG2013/535)

TRANSFIELD SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED GARRISON SUPPORT SERVICES WESTERN AUSTRALIA CATERING & HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Hospitality industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 16 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited Garrison Support Services Western Australia Catering & Hospitality Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited Garrison Support Services Western Australia Catering & Hospitality Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act 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 seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited Garrison Support Services Western Australia Catering & Hospitality Enterprise Agreement 2013. The agreement was made between the company and the United Voice union. The union represents the employees of the company who work in the catering and hospitality sectors at various military bases in Western Australia. The company sought the approval of the agreement to ensure that it met the legal requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the commission was whether the agreement was made in the course of genuine and genuine bargaining, as required by section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that the agreement was the result of genuine and genuine bargaining, while the union contended that the agreement was not genuinely bargained for because the company had not provided sufficient information and had not engaged in meaningful negotiations. The commission had to determine whether the agreement met the legal standards for genuine and genuine bargaining.

In considering the matter, the commission examined the process through which the agreement was reached, including the exchange of information and the negotiation process. The commission found that the company had not provided sufficient information to the union and had not engaged in meaningful negotiations. The commission concluded that the agreement was not genuinely bargained for and did not meet the legal standards for genuine and genuine bargaining. The commission did not approve the agreement. The company was given an opportunity to remedy the defects in the agreement and reapply for approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established