Tyco Australia T/A Wormald

[2013] FWCA 5564

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Tyco Australia T/A Wormald
(AG2013/7742)

WORMALD TOWNSVILLE FIRE ALARM ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 12 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Wormald Townsville Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Townsville Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 (“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 t/as Wormald (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

19 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 July 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Tyco Australia, trading as Wormald, which sought approval of the Wormald Townsville Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 from the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The nature of the dispute was the procedural fairness of the FWC's decision to approve the agreement, as claimed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). The AMWU argued that the FWC did not adequately consider the submissions made during the approval process. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the FWC exercised its discretion to approve the agreement appropriately and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the approval process. Specifically, the court examined whether the FWC adequately considered the submissions made by the AMWU, particularly regarding the impact of the agreement on employee conditions and the union's role in the approval process. The court also assessed whether the FWC's decision-making process met the standards of procedural fairness.

The court found that the FWC had exercised its discretion to approve the agreement correctly and had adequately considered the submissions made by the AMWU. The FWC's decision-making process was deemed to be procedurally fair, as it had given proper consideration to the arguments presented. The court concluded that there was no procedural unfairness and upheld the FWC's decision to approve the agreement. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the approval of the Wormald Townsville Fire Alarm Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 and dismissed the application for review brought by the AMWU. The court's decision affirmed the FWC's authority to approve the agreement and upheld the procedural fairness of the approval process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established