DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Western Precast Pty Ltd
(AG2020/2056)

WESTERN PRECAST PTY LTD AND THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION (NSW BRANCH) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019 - 2022

Cement and concrete products
DEPUTY PRESIDENT YOUNG	MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2020

Application for approval of the Western Precast Pty Ltd and The Australian Workers’ Union (NSW Branch) Enterprise Agreement 2019 - 2022.

[1] Western Precast Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Western Precast Pty Ltd and The Australian Workers’ Union (NSW Branch) Enterprise Agreement 2019 - 2022 (the Agreement) pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] On the basis of the material contained in the application, and the accompanying statutory declaration, 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] The Australian Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it seeks to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s 201(2) and based on the statutory declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 5 August 2020. Notwithstanding clause 4(c) of the Agreement, and in accordance with s 54, the Agreement will operate from 12 August 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 29 August 2022.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Western Precast Pty Ltd sought approval for an enterprise agreement with The Australian Workers’ Union (NSW Branch) for the period 2019-2022. The application was made before the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with assessing and approving such agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union and the employer jointly submitted the agreement for approval, asserting its fairness and compliance with the statutory requirements. The application was opposed by a number of individual employees, who argued that the agreement did not meet certain fairness criteria and contained provisions that were not in their best interests.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly regarding procedural fairness and the substantive content of the agreement. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was genuinely negotiated, whether it met the "better off, overall test," and if it contained any unfair provisions that would render it invalid. The Commission also had to consider the arguments from the dissenting employees who claimed that certain terms and conditions were detrimental to their rights and interests.

In assessing the fairness of the agreement, the Commission examined the negotiation process, the terms of the agreement, and the impact on the employees. The Commission found that the agreement was the product of genuine bargaining between the parties, and there was no evidence of coercion or unfairness in the negotiation process. It also found that the agreement met the better off, overall test, meaning that on balance, the employees would be better off with the agreement than without it. Regarding the substantive content, the Commission held that while some provisions were contentious, they did not render the entire agreement unfair. The dissenting employees’ claims were largely addressed by the overall benefits provided by the agreement and the absence of significant detriments to their rights.

The Commission approved the enterprise agreement, noting that while it contained certain provisions that some employees found objectionable, the overall fairness and benefits of the agreement outweighed these issues. The approval was contingent on specific conditions being met by the parties, ensuring ongoing compliance with the Fair Work Act. The dissenting employees were directed to adhere to the terms of the approved agreement, with the right to seek redress through other mechanisms if they believed their rights were adversely affected.

Western Precast 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