DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Viterra Operations Pty Ltd T/A Viterra
(AG2016/1071)

VITERRA DOOEN AGREEMENT 2016

Storage services
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 14 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the Viterra Dooen Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Viterra Dooen Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Viterra Operations Pty Ltd T/A Viterra. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 21 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Viterra Operations Pty Ltd, trading as Viterra, applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for the approval of the Viterra Dooen Agreement 2016. The agreement, intended to regulate the relationship between Viterra and its employees, specifically those at the Dooen facility, was challenged by the Australian Workers' Union. The union raised concerns about the agreement's provisions, particularly those relating to wages, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and whether it provided adequate protections for employees. The court had to determine if the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and if it complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Viterra argued that the agreement was a product of genuine negotiation and offered fair terms. The union countered that certain provisions were unfavourable to employees and did not adequately protect their rights.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and met the statutory requirements. The court found that the agreement provided reasonable terms for the employees and that it was in their best interests. The union's concerns about specific provisions were addressed, and the court was satisfied that the agreement was fair and balanced. Consequently, the court approved the Viterra Dooen Agreement 2016.

Viterra Operations Pty Ltd T/A Viterra

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established