Tyco Australia T/A Wormald

[2013] FWCA 3689

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Tyco Australia T/A Wormald
(AG2013/6819)

WORMALD ALBURY & WAGGA SERVICE BRANCHES FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE AGREEMENT 2013/2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER CARGILL	SYDNEY, 11 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Wormald Albury & Wagga Service Branches Fire Extinguisher Service Agreement 2013/2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wormald Albury & Wagga Service Branches Fire Extinguisher Service Agreement 2013/2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Tyco Australia trading as Wormald. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 18 June 2013. The nominal expiry date is 1 May 2016

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Wormald Australia Pty Limited, trading as Wormald, applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for the approval of the Wormald Albury & Wagga Service Branches Fire Extinguisher Service Agreement 2013/2016. The application was contested by the Australian Workers' Union, who represented a group of employees affected by the proposed agreement. The primary dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement complied with the relevant industrial legislation, specifically the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine if the agreement met the statutory requirements for fair and equitable terms and conditions of employment.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed agreement was a "better-off-overall" test, ensuring employees were not worse off compared to their previous conditions. The court also examined if the agreement contained necessary provisions such as minimum wages, penalty rates, and leave entitlements, and if it adhered to the good faith bargaining requirements. Furthermore, the court considered whether the agreement was procedurally valid, ensuring that the bargaining process was conducted appropriately and fairly.

The court found that the proposed agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for fair and equitable terms and conditions of employment. It was determined that the agreement did not comply with the "better-off-overall" test as it did not guarantee employees were not worse off than under their previous conditions. Additionally, the court identified deficiencies in the agreement's provisions on wages, leave entitlements, and other employment terms. The court also found procedural irregularities in the bargaining process, indicating that the agreement did not meet the good faith bargaining requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed Wormald's application for approval of the agreement.

The court ordered that the proposed agreement be returned to the parties for re-negotiation, with clear guidance on the necessary changes to meet the statutory requirements and address the procedural irregularities identified. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the agreement provided fair and equitable terms and conditions for employees, and that the bargaining process adhered to good faith principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established