Waterside Engineering Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 1892

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Waterside Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2013/640)

WATERSIDE ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 26 MARCH 2013

Application for approval of the Waterside Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Waterside Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Waterside Engineering Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 2 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Waterside Engineering Pty Ltd brought an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Waterside Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant sought to have the agreement registered as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009, which would provide for its enforcement against the parties. The application was opposed by various unions representing employees of the respondent.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement within the meaning of the Act, whether it had been negotiated in good faith, and whether it met the "better off overall test." The unions argued that the agreement was not genuinely an enterprise agreement and had been negotiated in bad faith. They also contended that the agreement did not meet the better off overall test as it did not provide employees with adequate protections and benefits.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement and had been negotiated in good faith. The Commission also found that the agreement met the better off overall test as it provided employees with a number of benefits, including increased wages and improved working conditions. The application was therefore approved and the agreement was registered as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The unions' opposition to the application was dismissed.

Waterside Engineering Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established