Veolia Environment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2012] FWA 8038

Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2012/5506) was lodged against this decision.

[2012] FWA 8038

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Veolia Environment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2012/4134)

COMMISSIONER BOOTH

BRISBANE, 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd Gladstone Operations 2012-2014 Enterprise Agreement

[1] Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) lodged the Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd Gladstone Operations 2012-2014 Enterprise Agreement on 21 March 2012. The Australian Workers Union (“AWU”) was a bargaining representative for the agreement. The AWU supported the approval of the agreement and gave notice that it wanted to be covered by it.

[2] The Tribunal’s consideration of this agreement raised a number of issues, both substantive and technical. Each needed to be resolved before approval could be given. The process therefore was somewhat complicated and required a number of direction conferences and several correspondences among the parties and FWA.

[3] The applicant was able to resolve all but one of these issues by giving undertakings.

[4] Approval then turned on the one remaining substantive issue, namely whether the Applicant has complied with Chapter 2 division 3 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) which deals with bargaining and representation during bargaining and in particular, whether the employer has complied in particular with sections 173 and 174 of the Act.

[5] These sections are outlined below.

173 Notice of employee representational rights

Employer to notify each employee of representational rights

(1) An employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement that is not a greenfields agreement must take all reasonable steps to give notice of the right to be represented by a bargaining representative to each employee who:

(a) will be covered by the agreement; and

(b) is employed at the notification time for the agreement.

Note: For the content of the notice, see section 174.

Notification time

(2) The notification time for a proposed enterprise agreement is the time when:

(a) the employer agrees to bargain, or initiates bargaining, for the agreement; or

(b) a majority support determination in relation to the agreement comes into operation; or

(d) a low-paid authorisation in relation to the agreement that specifies the employer comes into operation.

Note: The employer cannot request employees to approve the agreement under section 181 until 21 days after the last notice is given (see subsection 181(2)).

When notice must be given

(3) The employer must give the notice as soon as practicable, and not later than 14 days, after the notification time for the agreement.

Notice need not be given in certain circumstances

(4) An employer is not required to give a notice to an employee under subsection (1) in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if the employer has already given the employee a notice under that subsection within a reasonable period before the notification time for the agreement.

How notices are given

(5) The regulations may…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Veolia Environment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Veolia Environment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 8038
Case: [2012] FWA 8038
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veolia Environment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, an employer, sought a declaration that a decision made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in relation to the Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd Gladstone Operations 2012-2014 Enterprise Agreement was unlawful. The employer challenged the FWC's decision to declare that certain shift premiums were not wages for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary issue before the court was whether the FWC had erred in its interpretation of the Fair Work Act and in its application of the relevant principles of law to determine that the shift premiums were not wages. The employer argued that the shift premiums were wages because they were remuneration for the performance of employment and were not excluded by any provision of the Fair Work Act. The employer also submitted that the FWC had failed to consider relevant authorities and had made errors in its reasoning.

The court held that the FWC's decision was lawful and that the employer's appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the FWC had correctly interpreted the Fair Work Act and had applied the relevant principles of law to determine that the shift premiums were not wages. The court held that the shift premiums were not remuneration for the performance of employment because they were not paid for the time worked but rather for the inconvenience of working outside of ordinary hours. The court also found that the shift premiums were excluded from the definition of wages by the exclusion for allowances, gratuities, and other payments made under State laws. The employer's appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court did not make any orders as the employer's appeal was dismissed. The decision of the FWC remains in place, and the shift premiums in question are not considered wages for the purposes of the Fair Work Act.

Orders