DECISION

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

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald
(AG2014/10064)

WORMALD GOSFORD VEHICLE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS & FIRE EQUIPMENT SERVICE AND SALES DIVISION EMPLOYEE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 12 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Wormald Gosford Vehicle Suppression Systems & Fire Equipment Service and Sales Division Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Gosford Vehicle Suppression Systems & Fire Equipment Service and Sales Division Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017 (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] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A). Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.

[5] The Australian Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 19 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by the employer, Tyco Australia Pty Ltd trading as Wormald, for the approval of an employee enterprise agreement. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), did not oppose the application but raised certain objections to specific provisions within the agreement. The agreement in question pertains to the Wormald Gosford Vehicle Suppression Systems & Fire Equipment Service and Sales Division Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the provisions objected to by the ACTU were contrary to the requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections concerning the process of agreement making and the necessity for the agreement to promote workplace harmony. The Commission needed to determine if the provisions in question complied with the provisions of the Act and if they could be considered as promoting workplace harmony, despite the objections raised by the respondent.

In considering the objections, the Commission evaluated the specific provisions in the context of the overall agreement. The Commission found that the objected-to provisions did not contravene the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission also determined that the provisions, when read as a whole, did not undermine workplace harmony. The objections were based on the potential for certain provisions to be seen as undermining the role of workplace representatives, but the Commission found that the provisions in question did not have that effect. The Commission concluded that the provisions met the legal standards and could be approved.

Accordingly, the Fair Work Commission approved the Wormald Gosford Vehicle Suppression Systems & Fire Equipment Service and Sales Division Employee Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017. The approval was made effective from the date of the decision, allowing the agreement to be implemented as per its terms.

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established