UPS SCS (Australia) Services Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1596

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

UPS SCS (Australia) Services Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5000)

UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2012 - 2015

Road transport industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 14 MARCH 2013

UPS Supply Chain Solutions Certified Agreement 2012 - 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UPS Supply Chain Solutions Certified Agreement 2012 - 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by UPS SCS (Australia) 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 National Union of Workers, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. 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 21 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 March 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved UPS SCS (Australia) Services Pty Ltd and its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of Australia. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the UPS Supply Chain Solutions Certified Agreement 2012-2015. The employees argued that the employer had breached the agreement by imposing new rostering arrangements, which they claimed were more onerous than those previously agreed upon. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the changes were necessary to adapt to business needs and were within the scope of the agreement's flexibility clauses.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the new rostering arrangements constituted a breach of the certified agreement and, if so, what remedies were available to the affected employees. The Commission had to interpret the relevant clauses of the agreement, assess whether the employer's actions were in line with those clauses, and determine if any breaches had occurred. Furthermore, the Commission needed to consider the appropriate redress for the employees if a breach was found.

The Commission found that the employer had indeed breached the certified agreement by implementing rostering arrangements that were more onerous than those previously agreed upon, without adequately consulting with the union. The employer's reliance on flexibility clauses was deemed to be an attempt to circumvent the specific provisions of the agreement, which were clear in their limitations on unilateral changes. The Commission emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining and the need for employers to adhere to the terms of certified agreements. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate the previous rostering arrangements and to compensate the affected employees for the period during which the breaches occurred.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established