UAM Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 7298

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

UAM Pty Ltd
(AG2014/9323)

UAM PTY LTD & ETU POWERLINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Electrical power industry
COMMISSIONER LEWIN	MELBOURNE, 15 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement). The application has been made by UAM Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application for approval of this Agreement was made by Damien Millerd of UAM Pty Ltd on 10 October 2014.

[3] The Agreement was listed for e-hearing, in chambers before me at 2:00pm on Wednesday, 15 October 2014. All parties to the Agreement, including the employee bargaining representative, were notified of the e-hearing.

[4] Clause 42 — Consultation and Introduction of Change does not meet the requirements of s.205(1) and (1A) of the Act and r.2.09 and Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 in relation to the mandatory content that must be included in a consultation term of an enterprise agreement. Accordingly, pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term, as attached to this decision as Attachment A, is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] 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.

[6] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[7] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate seven days from the date of approval of the Agreement by the Fair Work Commission. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Attachment A:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

UAM Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The applicant, a registered electrical contractor, sought approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose because the Electrical Trades Union objected to the application. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the criteria for registration under section 229 of the Act. The Commission had to determine if the agreement provided for a fair and efficient workplace, was made in good faith, and did not discriminate against employees or prospective employees. The applicant argued that the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and provided for fair terms and conditions for its employees.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and reviewed the provisions of the agreement. It found that the agreement contained all the necessary elements for approval, including provisions for minimum rates of pay, overtime, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Commission noted that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and did not contain any discriminatory terms. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided for a fair and efficient workplace and met the statutory requirements for approval.

The Fair Work Commission approved the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016, finding that it met the criteria for registration under section 229 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for fair and efficient workplace terms and conditions and did not contain any discriminatory provisions. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement was made in good faith and met all the statutory requirements for approval. The applicant's application for approval was granted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established