DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Zurvas Earthmoving Pty Ltd T/A GWT Earthmoving
(AG2017/3810)

GWT EARTHMOVING SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	CANBERRA, 10 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the GWT Earthmoving Single Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the GWT Earthmoving Single Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Zurvas Earthmoving Pty Ltd T/A GWT Earthmoving. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, 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.

[3] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from Zurvas Earthmoving Pty Ltd T/A GWT Earthmoving. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 17 November 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 10 November 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zurvas Earthmoving Pty Ltd, trading as GWT Earthmoving, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the GWT Earthmoving Single Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was contested by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which argued that the agreement did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the statutory criteria for approval under section 231 of the Act. This involved assessing whether the agreement was in writing, free from coercion, contained the prescribed terms, and was appropriately certified. The Union argued that the agreement did not adequately address certain employment conditions, including shift patterns and overtime provisions.

The Fair Work Commission found that while the agreement was in writing and free from coercion, it did not fully comply with the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission noted deficiencies in the agreement's provisions concerning shift patterns and overtime. The Commission also found that the agreement had not been appropriately certified by the relevant union. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

No orders were made as the agreement was not approved. The parties were directed to negotiate a revised agreement that met all statutory requirements.

Zurvas Earthmoving Pty Ltd T/A GWT Earthmoving

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established