DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2668)

WILSON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD - CFMEU QLD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Coal industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 5 APRIL 2016

Approval of the Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd - CFMEU QLD Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd - CFMEU QLD Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made by Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, 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) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers that organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and will operate from 12 April 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 March 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission, with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Queensland Branch being the respondent. The dispute centred around the approval of the Wilson Mining Services Pty Ltd - CFMEU QLD Enterprise Agreement 2016, specifically regarding the process by which the agreement was negotiated and the application of section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and if the appropriate procedures were followed in line with the requirements of the Act.

The court first examined the negotiation process to determine if it complied with the Act's provisions. The court considered whether the parties genuinely negotiated and reached an agreement in good faith. The court assessed the evidence provided by both parties, including the timeline of negotiations, the involvement of bargaining representatives, and the extent to which the parties engaged in meaningful discussions. Furthermore, the court scrutinized whether the agreement contained provisions that went beyond the scope of what could be genuinely negotiated, as outlined in section 234(1) of the Act.

After a thorough analysis, the court determined that the negotiation process did not meet the requirements of genuine negotiation as defined by the Act. The court found that the agreement contained provisions that exceeded the scope of genuine negotiation, specifically addressing issues that were not properly negotiated between the parties. Consequently, the court ruled that the agreement could not be approved under section 235 of the Act. The court's decision hinged on the procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process, which did not align with the Act's provisions. The court ultimately rejected the application for approval of the enterprise agreement.

Wilson Mining Services 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