Vivid Glass, Doors and Windows Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 1868

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Vivid Glass, Doors and Windows Pty Ltd

(AG2025/1617)

VIVID GLASS WINDOWS AND DOORS FACTORY AGREEMENT 2025

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL	MELBOURNE, 3 JUNE 2025

Application for approval of the Vivid Glass Windows and Doors Factory Agreement 2025

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Vivid Glass Windows and Doors Factory Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). It has been made by Vivid Glass, Doors and Windows Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Notice of Representational Rights (NERR) distributed to employees is a pre-6 June 2023 reforms version. However, I am satisfied that the Agreement would have been genuinely agreed to but for the minor technical departure from the NERR requirements under s.174 of the Act and that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by this error. Accordingly, I exercise the discretion conferred by s.188(5) of the Act.

The agreement title in the Notice of Representational Rights (NERR) distributed to employees is slightly different to the agreement title in clause 1 of the Agreement and contained a minor discrepancy in coverage. However, I am satisfied that the Agreement would have been genuinely agreed to but for the minor technical departure from the NERR requirements under s.174 of the Act and that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by this error. Accordingly, I exercise the discretion conferred by s.188(5) of the Act.

I observe that the following provisions are likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES):

Clause 13.4 of the Agreement in relation to personal leave, which is inconsistent with s.107(2)(a) of the Act.

However, noting clause 4 of the Agreement, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

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.

The consultation term contained in clause 15 of the Agreement does not require the employer to invite the views of employees in relation to a proposed change to the regular roster or ordinary hours of work. This is inconsistent with s.205(1A)(b) of the Act. Pursuant to s.205A(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), 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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from Tuesday, 10 June 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is, 3 June 2029.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vivid Glass, Doors and Windows Pty Ltd, an applicant, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Vivid Glass Windows and Doors Factory Agreement 2025. The application was brought under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application sought to approve the agreement, which was the result of an amalgamation of three separate agreements. The dispute was primarily concerned with the procedural fairness of the amalgamation process and the extent to which the agreement met the legislative requirements.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the amalgamation process was conducted in a procedurally fair manner and whether the agreement met the legislative requirements for approval. The Commission needed to assess whether the process complied with the procedural fairness principles and whether the agreement was consistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The applicant argued that the process was fair and the agreement met all the legislative requirements. The Commission needed to carefully consider the procedural fairness of the amalgamation process and the content of the agreement to ensure it complied with the statutory criteria.

In its decision, the Commission found that the amalgamation process was procedurally fair. The Commission noted that the applicant had provided adequate notice and information to the relevant parties, and that the process allowed for meaningful participation. The Commission further found that the agreement was consistent with the Fair Work Act, as it addressed the key elements required by the legislation. The Commission concluded that the agreement was an improvement on the existing agreements, as it provided better protections for employees and addressed some of the issues that had arisen under the previous agreements. The Commission approved the agreement, finding that it met the necessary legislative requirements and was in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission's final order was that the Vivid Glass Windows and Doors Factory Agreement 2025 be approved as a registered agreement under section 176 of the Fair Work Act. The order also included provisions for the agreement to be registered with the Commission and for the agreement to be given effect as if it were a certified agreement. The Commission's decision provided clarity on the procedural fairness requirements for amalgamation processes and the criteria for approving enterprise agreements, which will be useful for future applications in similar circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established