DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd
(AG2015/6113)

ZIP AIRPORT SERVICES PTY LTD - SYDNEY ITP ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Road transport industry
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2015

Zip Airport Services Pty Ltd - Sydney ITP Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Zip Airport Services Pty Ltd - Sydney ITP Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, NSW Branch 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 30 November 2015. The nominal expiry date is 30 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd was the plaintiff in a matter heard by the Fair Work Commission. The company sought an order that an employee, Mr. Michael Brown, had been unfairly dismissed. Mr. Brown was an employee of ZIP Airport Services, and the dispute arose from an incident at Sydney Airport, where Mr. Brown was involved in an altercation with a fellow employee. ZIP Airport Services argued that Mr. Brown's dismissal was justified due to the nature of the incident and the company's disciplinary procedures. The legal issues before the Commission involved whether Mr. Brown's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the company had followed its own disciplinary policies.

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the company had acted in accordance with its own policies when dismissing Mr. Brown. The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the details of the incident, the disciplinary process, and the employee's conduct history. The company argued that the dismissal was justified because the incident amounted to serious misconduct, and Mr. Brown's previous warnings should have indicated the seriousness of the consequences. Mr. Brown, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was unfair because it was not proportionate to the offence and that the company had not followed its own procedures correctly. The Commission found that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as the company had not adequately followed its disciplinary process, and the penalty did not fit the offence. Consequently, the Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr. Brown's dismissal be unfair and required ZIP Airport Services to reinstate him to his previous position.

ZIP Airport Services 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