Unidex Consulting Pty Ltd T/A Frontline Human Resources

[2014] FWCA 8303

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Unidex Consulting Pty Ltd T/A Frontline Human Resources
(AG2014/8143)

STEGBAR PTY LTD (SA DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 26 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Stegbar Pty Ltd (SA Division) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Stegbar Pty Ltd (SA Division) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Unidex Consulting Pty Ltd T/A Frontline Human Resources and Stegbar Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 4 December 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 July 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Unidex Consulting Pty Ltd, trading as Frontline Human Resources, applied for approval of the Stegbar Pty Ltd (SA Division) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of its procedural fairness and compliance with the good faith bargaining obligations.

The Commission examined whether the agreement was made in good faith, if there was sufficient consultation between the parties, and if the agreement appropriately addressed the terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also considered if the agreement had been properly negotiated and if it contained all the necessary minimum terms as prescribed by the Act. The primary concern was whether the agreement had been reached without coercion and if the employees had an opportunity to be involved in the bargaining process.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Commission determined that the agreement was made in good faith and that the process of negotiation had been fair. The Commission found that the employer had adequately consulted with the employees and their representatives and that the agreement appropriately reflected the terms and conditions of employment. The Commission concluded that the agreement was procedurally fair and met the requirements of the Act. The application for approval was subsequently granted, and the enterprise agreement was certified as meeting the necessary standards.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established