Veolia Environmental Services

[2014] FWCA 2779

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Veolia Environmental Services
(AG2014/4099)

VEOLIA REFRACTORIES [LATROBE VALLEY] AGREEMENT 2013 - 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 29 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Veolia Refractories [Latrobe Valley] Agreement 2013 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Veolia Refractories [Latrobe Valley] Agreement 2013 - 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Veolia Environmental Services. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] My satisfaction as to s.186 is subject to a written undertaking, provided in relation to concerns raised by me in respect of approval of the Agreement, which is attached to this Decision as Attachment A and to the Agreement. In accordance with s.191(1)(b) of the Act the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] In my view, the Consultation on Major Workplace Change provision in clause 30 of the Agreement is not a consultation term which meets the requirements of ss.205(1)(a)(ii) and (1A) of the Act, insofar as it does not include the terms concerning consultation about a change to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. These terms were introduced into the Act by Items 20 and 21 of Part 4 (Consultation about changes to rosters or working hours) of Schedule 1 (Family–friendly measures) of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act).Those amendments operate in relation to an enterprise agreement that is made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 on 1 January 2014 (See clause 5(2) of Item 1 of Schedule 7 (Application and transitional provisions) of the Amendment Act).

[5] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that if an “enterprise agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement”. The model consultation term is found in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

[6] As required by s.201(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, I note that the model consultation term is taken, under s.205(2), to be a term of the Agreement.

[7] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union 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), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 6 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Veolia Environmental Services and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union were parties to an industrial dispute that came before the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was the application for approval of the Veolia Refractories (Latrobe Valley) Agreement 2013-2017. The Union sought various amendments to the proposed agreement, arguing that it did not sufficiently protect employee interests, particularly in relation to conditions of employment and redundancies.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the terms of the proposed agreement against the backdrop of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the agreement was consistent with the Act's objectives of creating sustainable, productive, and cooperative workplace relations. It was necessary to balance the parties' bargaining power and ensure that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for employees.

The Commission considered the parties' submissions and evidence presented. It found that while the proposed agreement generally met the statutory criteria, certain aspects needed amendment to better protect employee interests. The Commission highlighted the importance of providing adequate notice of redundancies and ensuring fair treatment during the redundancy process. After making the necessary amendments, the Commission approved the agreement, finding it to be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Act.

The final orders included specific modifications to the agreement, such as enhanced redundancy provisions and clearer communication requirements during redundancy processes. The Commission emphasised that these changes were necessary to ensure the agreement met the statutory standards and protected employee rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established