DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
(AG2021/4375)

VEOLIA, CAMERON PARK SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2018-2022

Waste management industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT YOUNG	MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2021

Application for variation of the Veolia, Cameron Park Solid Waste Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Veolia, Cameron Park Solid Waste Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022 (the Agreement). The application was made by Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] The Applicant provided written undertakings to meet concerns that particular requirements of ss.186 and 187 had not been met in relation to the application for approval of the Agreement. The undertakings were accepted and the Agreement was approved on 19 July 2019. Those undertakings form part of the Agreement as varied.

[5] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[6] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 15 April 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd recently appeared before the Fair Work Commission in an application to vary the Veolia, Cameron Park Solid Waste Enterprise Agreement 2018-2022. The application was brought pursuant to section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009, with the employer seeking to alter various terms and conditions of employment for employees covered by the agreement. The crux of the dispute revolved around the employer's request to adjust working hours, introduce a new shift system, and modify the redundancy provisions. The employees, represented by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, opposed these changes, arguing they would lead to increased workloads and reduced job security.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on whether the proposed changes could be justified under the "better off overall test" as per section 235(1) of the Fair Work Act. This test requires that any proposed changes must ensure that employees are not worse off overall than they were under the existing agreement. The Commission had to weigh the employer's claims of economic necessity and operational efficiency against the employees' concerns about job security and work-life balance. The crux of the argument was whether the proposed changes would indeed result in employees being better off overall, considering all factors, including financial compensation, working conditions, and job security.

In its decision, the Commission noted the employer's assertion that the proposed changes were necessary to maintain operational efficiency and to respond to financial pressures within the company. The Commission acknowledged the economic hardships faced by the employer but also considered the significant impact the changes would have on the employees. After evaluating the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission concluded that the proposed changes did not meet the better off overall test. The changes were deemed to adversely affect the employees' overall conditions, particularly in terms of workload and job security. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the existing enterprise agreement remained in place.

The Fair Work Commission's decision underscores the importance of balancing economic imperatives with the welfare of employees. By rejecting the employer's application, the Commission reinforced the principle that changes to employment conditions must not only serve the employer's interests but also ensure that employees are not worse off overall. The ruling serves as a reminder to employers that significant changes to employment terms must be carefully justified and supported by evidence that meets the statutory threshold.

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established