DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Warehouse Solutions Pty Ltd
(AG2016/5189)

ALTONA REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTRE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Storage services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Altona Regional Distribution Centre Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Altona Regional Distribution Centre Enterprise 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 Warehouse Solutions Pty Ltd. 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 National Union of Workers & the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 28 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warehouse Solutions Pty Ltd was the applicant seeking approval of the Altona Regional Distribution Centre Enterprise Agreement 2016, which it had negotiated with the Retail and Fast Moving Consumer Goods Union. The application was made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The decision was handed down in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, with Judge Chapman presiding.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), and whether it contained any terms that were unfair. The court also considered whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether the union had genuinely negotiated the agreement.

The court found that the agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as it contained terms that were not permitted under the Act. The court also found that the agreement contained terms that were unfair, including provisions that allowed the employer to unilaterally determine the number of employees required to work on any given day and to require employees to work shifts on a 24/7 roster. However, the court noted that these issues could be rectified through amendments to the agreement. The court also found that the union had genuinely negotiated the agreement and that it was in the best interests of the employees.

The court approved the agreement with the condition that certain provisions be amended to comply with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court ordered that the agreement be registered as a modern award with those amendments. The court also ordered that the applicant and the union take all necessary steps to amend the agreement in accordance with the court's orders.

Warehouse Solutions 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