DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Wormald Australia T/A Wormald
(AG2018/2267)

WORMALD & CEPU NSW CONSTRUCTION SPRINKLER FITTING FIRE PROTECTION UNION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NSW 2015-2019

Plumbing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 29 JUNE 2018

Application for variation of the Wormald & CEPU NSW Construction Sprinkler Fitting Fire Protection Union Enterprise Agreement NSW 2015-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Wormald & CEPU NSW Construction Sprinkler Fitting Fire Protection Union Enterprise Agreement NSW 2015-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made by Wormald Australia T/A Wormald pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. 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.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[6] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 29 June 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wormald Australia T/A Wormald, represented by Mr. J. D. G. Davies, sought to vary the terms of the Wormald & CEPU NSW Construction Sprinkler Fitting Fire Protection Union Enterprise Agreement NSW 2015-2019. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission by the employer, aiming to amend various provisions concerning employee classification, remuneration, and work hours. The union, represented by Mr. R. A. L. Brown, opposed the application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations were necessary and reasonable in the context of the enterprise's operational needs and the principles of good faith bargaining. The employer argued that the changes were essential for maintaining competitiveness and efficiency, while the union contended that the proposed changes would negatively impact employee conditions and were not the result of genuine negotiations. The Commission had to assess the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed changes, ensuring that they complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the broader economic context. It found that while the employer had demonstrated some need for changes, the proposed variations were not entirely reasonable and necessary. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a balanced approach that protected both the employer's business interests and the employees' rights. As such, the Commission varied some of the provisions but rejected others, aiming to strike a fair balance between the parties' interests.

The final orders of the Commission included variations to certain provisions of the Enterprise Agreement, including adjustments to employee classification and remuneration, but rejected others that were deemed not necessary or reasonable. The decision highlighted the Commission's role in ensuring fair and balanced outcomes in enterprise bargaining disputes.

Wormald Australia T/A Wormald

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established