Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia)

Case [2015] FWCA 2432


[2015] FWCA 2432 [Note: a correction has been issued to this document]
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia)
(AG2015/362)

YARRAVILLE BIOETHANOL SITE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Sugar industry

COMMISSIONER LEWIN

MELBOURNE, 16 APRIL 2015

Application for approval of the Yarraville BioEthanol Site Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 24 February 2015, Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) Pty Ltd (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Yarraville BioEthanol Site Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.
[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached as Annexure A. The Commission is satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. In any case, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) have indicated their acceptance of the undertakings.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, the Commission is satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[5] The 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. In accordance with s 201(2), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 24 April 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 November 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE413449  PR562890>

ANNEXURE A

Details
AGLC
Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) [2015] FWCA 2432
Case
[2015] FWCA 2432
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Wilmar BioEthanol (Australia), applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Yarraville BioEthanol Site Enterprise Agreement 2014. The application was made under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking the agreement's registration as a single-employer enterprise agreement. The dispute centred around whether the agreement met the criteria for approval, including whether it complied with the statutory requirements and whether it was in the interests of the employees.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on the process of its creation and its alignment with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission examined whether the agreement was made in accordance with the statutory process, and if it was in the interests of the employees, considering the balance of rights and obligations. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement contained provisions that were consistent with the statutory minimum standards and did not disadvantage employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission held that the agreement did not comply with the process outlined in the Fair Work Act, as it was not made by a registered organisation representing the employees. The Commission further found that the agreement did not adequately protect the employees' interests, as it did not provide sufficient safeguards against potential disadvantages. As a result, the application for approval was dismissed, and the agreement was not registered as a single-employer enterprise agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.