Mr. Thiess appealed Commissioner Roe`s decision for seven reasons, focusing primarily on his conclusion that the staff who voted for the contract were not fairly elected or were not subject to the agreement and had not been actually agreed by the workers. If a job has a registered contract, the premium does not apply. However, the critical question of whether the workers who voted in favour of the agreement are “workers employed at the time of the agreement and those covered by the agreement” is also highlighted. For more information on the interpretation of your enterprise agreement, the management of disputes in your workplace or the representation of the Fair Labour Commission, please contact Lindsay Carroll on 0419 887 303 or [email protected] employers who work on large construction sites where workers must travel a considerable distance between the level of the site and the workplace (for example. B airport staff), current enterprise agreements and current practices should be audited to ensure they are compliant. The decision also highlights the need for employers to plan their agreement development strategy, particularly with respect to scope and coverage, with a statement of good faith business reasons. Despite the travel time to and from work, which is generally not considered a “working time”, the Court in this case rejected the employer`s interpretation of the enterprise agreement and found that the employer was required to pay its employees for their bus journey from the settlement area to the site where they began to work physically. A full bank, consisting of Vice-President Gostencnik, Vice-President Clancy and Commissioner Lee, decided that Commissioner Roe had erred in his February decision to refuse to approve the agreement by not interrupting the conclusion of the three staff members who voted to approve the agreement. Employers are also advised to seek support in the development of enterprise agreements to avoid costly litigation. Mining contractor Thiess has appealed commissioner Roe`s individual decision to denounce an enterprise agreement for his Mount Pleasant Mine Project. The case is a timely reminder for employers to ensure that each clause of your enterprise agreement is carefully crafted to reflect the employer`s actual intentions to avoid exposure to sub-payments.
Full Bench then decided to consider Thiess` “coverage” argument under the agreement. The contracting process is often cumbersome and fraught with delays, which affects productivity and availability as soon as a contract is made. The three people involved in this contracting process were employed in the construction, scale and planning of heavy machinery maintenance work using their capabilities. It is reasonable to expect that the preparatory work of the Mount Pleasant Mine Project may have influenced the timing of this particular maintenance, but other commercial reasons may have arisen from time to time, which has led to the maintenance of the equipment.