DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd
(AG2015/3346)

UGL RAIL SERVICES PTY LIMITED - AUBURN UGL UNIPART JV ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 13 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the UGL Rail Services Pty Limited - Auburn UGL Unipart JV Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UGL Rail Services Pty Limited - Auburn UGL Unipart JV Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

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

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s54 of the Act, will operate from 20 August 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the Fair Work Commission, the respondent, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to review the decision of the Fair Work Commission regarding the approval of the UGL Rail Services Pty Limited - Auburn UGL Unipart Joint Venture Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018. The applicant, UGL Rail Services, sought judicial review of the Fair Work Commission's decision, arguing that the Commission had erred in law by failing to properly consider certain aspects of the agreement, including the process by which it was negotiated and the compliance with procedural fairness. The legal issues before the Court included whether the Fair Work Commission had correctly applied the law in reviewing the enterprise agreement, whether the Commission had properly assessed the negotiation process, and whether the Commission had adequately considered the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Court found that the Fair Work Commission had indeed erred in law by not properly considering the negotiation process and procedural fairness. The Court held that the Commission had failed to sufficiently address the applicant's submissions regarding these matters. In particular, the Court noted that the Commission had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the applicant about the negotiation process and had not sufficiently addressed the applicant's arguments about procedural fairness. The Court held that these errors amounted to a failure to properly apply the law, and thus the decision of the Fair Work Commission was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Fair Work Commission for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

In light of the Court's findings, the Fair Work Commission was directed to reconsider the application for approval of the enterprise agreement, with specific attention to the negotiation process and procedural fairness. The Court did not make any final orders regarding the approval of the enterprise agreement, as this matter was to be determined by the Fair Work Commission upon its reconsideration of the application.

UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established