Wilson Security Pty Ltd T/A Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 44

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Wilson Security Pty Ltd T/A Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd
(AG2013/10472)

WILSON SECURITY MINING/RESOURCES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT QLD 2011

Security services
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 3 JANUARY 2014

Application for variation of the Wilson Security Mining/Resources Enterprise Agreement QLD 2011.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Wilson Security Mining/Resources Enterprise Agreement QLD 2011 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the employer party to the Agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act have been met. I approve the variations which are as follows:

1. To insert a new clause at 3.3 detailing the changes made in the Variation Agreement.

2. To insert a new sub-clause title to clause 34.1, limiting the application of the existing pay rate classification structure to ‘2 week on and 1 week off’ or ‘2 weeks on 2 weeks off’ rosters only.

3. To insert a new sub-clause at 34.2 providing for a new rates of pay classification structure for rosters worked other than ‘2 week on and 1 week off’ or ‘2 weeks on 2 weeks off’.

[3] The consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision. In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates on and from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilson Security Pty Ltd, trading as Wilson Parking Australia 1992 Pty Ltd, applied to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the Wilson Security Mining/Resources Enterprise Agreement QLD 2011. The dispute centred around the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement, which was intended to affect the employees working in the mining and resources sectors. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed changes were fair and reasonable, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable. The procedural fairness pertained to whether the necessary steps were taken to ensure that employees were adequately consulted about the changes. Substantive fairness related to the merits of the changes themselves, considering factors such as the impact on employees' working conditions, entitlements, and overall fairness. The Commission had to assess these issues in light of the principles established by the Fair Work Act and relevant case law.

The Commission found that the application did not meet the requirements for procedural fairness as there was insufficient consultation with the employees regarding the proposed changes. Additionally, the substantive fairness of the changes was also questionable, as the proposed modifications did not adequately protect the employees' interests and working conditions. Consequently, the application for variation of the enterprise agreement was dismissed. The decision emphasised the importance of fair and reasonable consultation processes and the need for enterprise agreements to genuinely reflect the interests of all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established