DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Tyco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Wormald
(AG2016/2383)

WORMALD FIRE ALARM ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT, PERTH 2015-2018

Electrical Contracting Industry
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 5 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Wormald Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement, Perth 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement, Perth 2015-2018 (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 T/A Wormald. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tyco Australia Pty Ltd trading as Wormald, the matter involved an application for approval of the Wormald Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement for the period 2015-2018. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the approval of enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval, particularly focusing on its compliance with procedural and substantive fairness requirements.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act, and whether the agreement was substantively fair. The Commission had to consider if the employees had been adequately informed and consulted during the negotiation process, and if the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable. The company argued that the agreement was the product of good faith negotiations, while the union contended that there were procedural deficiencies and that certain terms of the agreement were unfair.

The Commission found that while there were some procedural shortcomings, they were not significant enough to invalidate the agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the overall process was conducted in good faith, and that the employees had a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the negotiations. Regarding substantive fairness, the Commission concluded that the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable, taking into account the need for a balance between the interests of the employer and employees. The Commission determined that the benefits provided by the agreement outweighed any potential detriments, and thus, the agreement was approved.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Wormald Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement for the period 2015-2018, subject to certain conditions that aimed to address the identified procedural issues. The agreement was to be implemented, and the Commission set a date for the agreement to commence, ensuring that both parties were bound by 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