DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10048)

TYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED TRADING AS WORMALD PORTABLE SERVICE AND SALES DIVISION ADELAIDE SA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 19 DECEMBER 2014

Tyco Australia Pty Limited trading as Wormald Portable Service and Sales Division Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Portable Service and Sales Division Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tyco Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] An undertaking has been provided in the following terms:

“1) The company undertakes in respect to Clause 14 of the South Australian Portable sales and service agreement 2014-2017 that an employee will be entitled to overtime rates prescribed by the manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations award 2010 once ordinary hours of work have been completed.

2) Employees will not be required to work shift work in line with Clause 41.3 of the Associated Industries and Occupations award 2010. Shift work referred to in clause 14 of the said agreement only refers to the possibility of 5 day shift work.” (sic)

[3] As a result, the above undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A full copy of advice provided by the employer is attached to the Agreement as Attachment 1.

[4] 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.

[5] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 27 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Tyco Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Wormald Portable Service and Sales Division Adelaide SA, and various employees represented by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The dispute arose from the interpretation and application of the Tyco Australia Pty Limited trading as Wormald Portable Service and Sales Division Adelaide SA Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues that the court had to address involved the interpretation of certain clauses within the enterprise agreement, specifically concerning penalty rates for weekend work and the classification of employees. The employees argued that they were entitled to higher penalty rates for working on weekends, while the employer contended that the agreement did not require such rates. Additionally, there was a disagreement about whether certain employees should be classified under a particular category within the agreement, which would affect their entitlements and conditions of employment.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the language of the enterprise agreement in detail, considering the ordinary meaning of the terms used and the context in which they were employed. The Commission found that the wording of the agreement did not explicitly require higher penalty rates for weekend work, and therefore, the employees were not entitled to those rates. Regarding the classification issue, the Commission determined that the employees in question should be classified under the category specified by the employer. The Commission concluded that the agreement's terms did not support the employees' claims, and thus, the employer's position was upheld.

The Fair Work Commission made orders accordingly, dismissing the employees' claims for higher penalty rates and confirming their classification as determined by the employer. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the enterprise agreement, focusing on the plain meaning of the terms and the context in which they were used. The outcome reinforced the importance of clear and precise language in enterprise agreements to avoid ambiguity and disputes.

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established