DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Vesta Steel Pty Ltd
(AG2017/323)

VESTA STEEL PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2017

Application for approval of the Vesta Steel Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Vesta Steel Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Vesta Steel Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] 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.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 21 March 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 20 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vesta Steel Pty Ltd recently applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an Enterprise Agreement (the EA) made with its employees. The application arose from negotiations between the employer and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), which represents the employees. The CFMEU argued that the EA did not meet the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Commission, which needed to determine whether the EA complied with the Act.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the EA provided for the proper representation of employees, whether it contained mandatory terms that were not permitted by law, and whether the process for making the EA was compliant with the Act. The Commission considered the provisions of the EA, the arguments of the parties, and relevant case law. It determined that the EA did not properly represent the employees, as the employer had not followed the correct process for identifying bargaining representatives. The Commission also found that some of the mandatory terms in the EA were not permitted under the Act.

Following these findings, the Commission refused to approve the EA. The Commission noted that the EA did not comply with the legal requirements for approval and that the employer had not followed the proper process for making the agreement. The Commission also highlighted the importance of ensuring that employees are properly represented in the bargaining process and that any mandatory terms in an EA are permissible under the Act. The Commission's decision is a reminder for employers and unions to carefully consider the legal requirements for making an EA and to ensure that the process for making the agreement is followed correctly.

Vesta Steel 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