White Powder Pty Ltd ATF Goldmont Trust T/A Goldmont

[2014] FWCA 4581

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

White Powder Pty Ltd ATF Goldmont Trust T/A Goldmont
(AG2014/1702)

GOLDMONT AP5 PROJECT AWU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 18 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Goldmont AP5 Project AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goldmont AP5 Project AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

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

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is two years and six months from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

White Powder Pty Ltd, trading as Goldmont, applied for approval of the Goldmont AP5 Project AWU Greenfields Agreement 2014. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The agreement was an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement proposed terms and conditions for employees involved in the Goldmont AP5 Project. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act and if it was fair and reasonable in all its aspects.

The court examined whether the agreement complied with the legislative criteria for AWAs, focusing on its procedural fairness and substantive fairness. The applicant argued that the agreement was a genuine individual agreement that had been negotiated in good faith. The respondent contended that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements, specifically regarding the process of negotiation and the fairness of its terms. The court considered whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether it was free from coercion, and if it complied with the procedural and substantive fairness standards.

The court found that the agreement was procedurally fair as it was negotiated in good faith and free from coercion. However, the court found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for substantive fairness as some of its terms did not align with industry standards and the general principles of fairness. Consequently, the court did not grant approval for the agreement. The court's decision was based on the specific terms of the agreement and their alignment with industry standards and fairness principles.

No orders were made as the court did not approve the agreement. The applicant would need to revise the agreement to meet the statutory requirements before reapplying for approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established