Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact; Verifact Resources Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 8489

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact; Verifact Resources Pty Ltd
(AG2014/8145)

VERIFACT TRAFFIC CONTROL GROUP ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 1 DECEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the Verifact Traffic Control Group Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 11 November 2014 by Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact; Verifact Resources Pty Ltd for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Verifact Traffic Control Group Enterprise Agreement 2014(“the Agreement”).

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union (“the AWU”), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the AWU.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are Verifact Pty Ltd trading as Verifact and Verifact Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from the need for the Fair Work Commission to approve an enterprise agreement. The case was heard in the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the court was whether the enterprise agreement, as presented, met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically regarding the need for employee consultation and the approval of the agreement. The court had to determine if the process undertaken by the employer was compliant with the legislative provisions and if the agreement itself was fair and reasonable.

The court examined the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the extent of the consultation with employees. It was crucial to assess if the employer had fulfilled the obligation to consult with employees, particularly if there was a recognised union involved. The court also considered the fairness and reasonableness of the terms of the agreement. The arguments presented by the parties focused on the adequacy of the consultation process and whether the agreement was appropriately negotiated with genuine employee representation.

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not adequately consulted with the employees, particularly in the absence of a recognised union. The court held that the process did not meet the legislative standards for consultation, which necessitated more than mere notification of the agreement's terms. The court also noted that the agreement itself contained provisions that were not fair and reasonable. Consequently, the court rejected the application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The decision underscored the importance of genuine consultation and the need for fairness in the terms of any enterprise agreement.

In light of the findings, the Full Bench did not grant approval of the Verifact Traffic Control Group Enterprise Agreement 2014. The court's decision emphasised the critical role of proper consultation and fair terms in the approval process for enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The rejection of the agreement serves as a reminder to employers of the necessity to engage in meaningful dialogue with employees when negotiating and presenting enterprise agreements for approval.

Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact; Verifact Resources Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established