Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 10110

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11668)

TRICOM ENGINEERING GROUP PTY LTD SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 24 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 relevant to this application for approval has been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from

31 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 years from approval.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd applied for the approval of the Tricom Engineering Group Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013. This dispute arose between the company and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, representing the employees, concerning the terms and conditions of employment for the workers. The crux of the disagreement involved the company's request for the introduction of a penalty rate for work conducted on public holidays and the alteration of provisions relating to the calculation of penalty rates for overtime worked on weekends. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed changes were fair and reasonable, and if they complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the proposed penalty rates were justifiable given the nature of the work, and whether the changes to the overtime penalty rate calculation were appropriate. The Commission also had to consider the views of the union and whether the proposed changes would have any adverse impact on the employees. The company argued that the changes were necessary to ensure the competitiveness of the business and to reflect the true nature of the work undertaken. The union, however, contended that the proposed changes would result in a reduction of employee entitlements and were not justified.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed changes to the penalty rates for public holidays were justifiable given the nature of the work and the need for the company to remain competitive. The Commission determined that the proposed changes to the overtime penalty rate calculation were also fair and reasonable, and would not result in an adverse impact on the employees. The Commission took into account the views of the union, but ultimately found that the proposed changes were in the best interests of both the company and the employees. The Commission approved the proposed changes to the agreement, and the matter was concluded with the parties having a binding enterprise agreement in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established