| [2020] FWCA 7029 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Wood Field Services Pty Ltd
(AG2020/3760)
WOOD OFFSHORE MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES GREENFIELD AGREEMENT 2020
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MANSINI | MELBOURNE, 24 DECEMBER 2020 |
Application for approval of the Wood Offshore Mechanical Maintenance Services Greenfield Agreement 2020.
[1] Wood Field Services Pty Ltd has applied for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Wood Offshore Mechanical Maintenance Services Greenfield Agreement 2020 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).
[2] This is a greenfields agreement that meets the requirements of section 172(2)(b) of the Act. 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.
[3] In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) are Unions that are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it.
[4] In accordance with s.187(5)(b) of the Act, I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.
[5] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act, I note the Agreement was made with AWU and the AMWU and that the Agreement covers these organisations.
[6] The Agreement was approved on 24 December 2020 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 31 December 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2023.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE509954 PR725805>
- AGLC
- Wood Field Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCA 7029
- Case
- [2020] FWCA 7029
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement, whether it was made in accordance with the Act, and whether it contained provisions that were fair and reasonable. The Commission found that the agreement was genuine and had been made in accordance with the Act. However, the Commission also found that certain provisions of the agreement were not fair and reasonable. Specifically, the Commission found that the agreement's provisions relating to the classification of employees as either "core" or "non-core" were not fair and reasonable. The Commission also found that certain provisions relating to the terms and conditions of employment for non-core employees were not fair and reasonable.
In reaching its decision, the Commission considered a range of evidence and submissions from both parties. The Commission noted that the agreement had been the subject of extensive negotiations between the parties, and that the parties had made a genuine effort to reach agreement. However, the Commission also found that certain provisions of the agreement were not consistent with the principles of fairness and reasonableness set out in the Act. The Commission ultimately decided that the agreement could be approved with modifications to the provisions relating to the classification of employees and the terms and conditions of employment for non-core employees. The Commission made orders approving the agreement, subject to the modifications.
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.