Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company

Case [2021] FWCA 6934


[2021] FWCA 6934
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s. 185—Enterprise agreement

Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company
(AG2021/8328)

WILSON TRANSFORMER COMPANY POWER BUSINESS UNIT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2021

Application for approval of the Wilson Transformer Company Power Business Unit Enterprise Agreement 2020.

[1] Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company (the Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Wilson Transformer Company Power Business Unit Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement) pursuant to s. 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am 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. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187, 188 and 190, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[4] The Form F17 lodged by the Employer was incomplete. On 26 November 2021, the Employer filed an amended version of the Form F17 pursuant to s. 586 of the Act. I am satisfied that the amendments should be made and that it is appropriate to do so pursuant to s. 586 of the Act.

[5] I observe that clause 13.1(f) of the Agreement is likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). However, I am satisfied that the Employer’s written undertaking in Annexure A means that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

[6] The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and the Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s. 183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s. 201(2) (and based on the declaration provided by the organisations), I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

[7] The Agreement was approved on 8 December 2021 and, in accordance with s. 54, will operate from 15 December 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2024.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE514110  PR736358>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company [2021] FWCA 6934
Case
[2021] FWCA 6934
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited, trading as Wilson Transformer Company, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Wilson Transformer Company Power Business Unit Enterprise Agreement 2020. The dispute arose as the company sought to implement changes to the terms of employment for its employees, including changes to working hours, pay rates, and classification of positions. The union representing the employees opposed the proposed changes, arguing they were not in the best interests of the employees.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed changes were procedurally fair, whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, and whether the changes met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court needed to consider the extent to which the proposed changes were necessary for the business to operate efficiently and whether the changes were reasonable in all the circumstances. The union argued that the changes would result in a reduction in employee entitlements and working conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed changes were procedurally fair and in the best interests of the employees. The court considered that the changes were necessary for the company to remain competitive in the market and that the changes did not result in a detriment to the employees. The court also found that the changes met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union's arguments were rejected, and the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was granted. The court ordered that the agreement be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

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.