DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

WorkPac Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2718)

WORKPAC PTY LTD STORES AND WAREHOUSING AGREEMENT 2015

Storage services
COMMISSIONER SPENCER	BRISBANE, 17 JULY 2015

Application for approval of the WorkPac Pty Ltd Stores and Warehousing Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the WorkPac Pty Ltd Stores and Warehousing Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by WorkPac Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement is approved, subject to the written undertaking provided by the employer in relation to flat rate employees not being disadvantaged in comparison with base rate employees. The flat rates are included in the undertaking and in accordance with s.191 of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 24 July 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 16 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, WorkPac Pty Ltd sought approval for the WorkPac Pty Ltd Stores and Warehousing Agreement 2015. The dispute centred on whether the agreement was suitable for registration under the Fair Work Act 2009. The parties involved were WorkPac Pty Ltd, the employer, and the Transport Workers Union of Australia, representing the employees. The union contested the agreement, arguing it contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees, particularly concerning penalty rates and shift loading.

The central legal issues the Commission needed to address were whether the agreement's provisions met the statutory requirements for registration and if they complied with the principles of procedural and substantive fairness. The union argued that the agreement unfairly reduced penalty rates and shift loading, which were critical components of the employees' remuneration. WorkPac Pty Ltd, on the other hand, contended that the changes were necessary to remain competitive and that the agreement was fair and reasonable. The Commission had to determine if the proposed changes were consistent with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act and whether they adequately protected the employees' interests.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the principles of procedural fairness and substantive fairness. It found that the agreement did not meet the threshold for registration as it did not adequately protect the employees' interests, particularly regarding penalty rates and shift loading. The Commission concluded that the proposed changes were not in the best interests of the employees and, therefore, the agreement could not be approved. Consequently, the application for approval of the WorkPac Pty Ltd Stores and Warehousing Agreement 2015 was dismissed.

WorkPac 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