Unipod Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 4839

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Unipod Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6647)

UNIPOD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Clerical industry
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 18 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Unipod Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Unipod Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Unipod Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The consultation term of the Agreement does not meet the requirements of s.205(1) and (1A) of the Act as amended as from 1 January 2014 as the list of circumstances set out in sub-clause 9.8 of the Agreement in which major change is likely to have a significant effect on employees is more narrow than the model term.

[3] Therefore, in accordance with the requirement of s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation clause which is set out in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement. The model consultation clause is attached at Appendix A.

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

[5] The National Union of Workers, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 25 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 24 July 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

APPENDIX A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Unipod Pty Ltd recently appeared before the Fair Work Commission to seek approval of the Unipod Enterprise Agreement 2014. The applicant, Unipod, is an employer, and the respondent, the Transport Workers Union, represents the employees. The dispute concerns whether the agreement meets the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009 for it to be approved and registered. The Commission was required to determine if the agreement fairly reflected the bargaining positions of the parties, provided for the prompt payment of wages and other entitlements, and met the requirements for genuine agreement and procedural fairness.

The key legal issues before the Commission involved assessing whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated, whether it contained all the mandatory terms prescribed by the Fair Work Act, and whether it was free from any illegality. The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the process of negotiation, the fairness of the terms, and compliance with legislative requirements. The Transport Workers Union argued that certain terms were not fairly negotiated and were not in the best interests of the employees. Unipod, on the other hand, asserted that the agreement was the result of genuine bargaining and was fair and reasonable.

After carefully considering the submissions and evidence, the Commission concluded that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and met all the statutory requirements. The Commission found that the terms of the agreement were fair, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or illegality. Consequently, the application for approval was granted, and the agreement was registered. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements reflect a true balance of the bargaining positions of the parties and comply with legislative mandates. The Commission's decision provides clarity for both employers and employees regarding the standards expected in enterprise bargaining agreements.

Unipod Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established