DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Yates Australia (a division of Dulux Group Limited)
(AG2016/1351)

YATES AUSTRALIA MT DRUITT MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 8 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the Yates Australia Mt Druitt Manufacturing Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Yates Australia Mt Druitt Manufacturing Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Yates Australia (a division of Dulux Group Limited). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 8 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved Yates Australia, a division of Dulux Group Limited, and its employees represented by the United Voice union. The dispute centred on the application for the approval of the Yates Australia Mt Druitt Manufacturing Enterprise Agreement 2016. The union sought to ensure that the agreement met the necessary standards under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly concerning the protection of employees' rights and conditions.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the enterprise agreement complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, and if it provided adequate protections for employees' terms and conditions. Specifically, the union raised concerns about the agreement's provisions on wages, working hours, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The commission needed to assess whether the agreement had been genuinely bargained and if it met the 'better off overall test' for employees.

In delivering the decision, the commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the nature of the bargaining process. The commission found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the employer and the union, and it contained provisions that were fair and reasonable. The commission noted that the agreement provided for increases in wages and conditions that were better than the applicable awards, thus satisfying the 'better off overall test'. The commission also found that the dispute resolution mechanisms were adequate and in line with the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the commission approved the enterprise agreement, determining it met all the necessary legal standards.

The final orders of the commission were that the Yates Australia Mt Druitt Manufacturing Enterprise Agreement 2016 be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision was made on the basis that the agreement had been fairly negotiated and provided better terms and conditions for employees compared to the applicable awards.

Yates Australia (a division of Dulux Group Limited)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established