Select Page

Addressing the decline in company agreements through simplification is a priority of the AMMA campaign on employment reform “Pathway to Productivity”, which will start in 2019, before the covid 19 crisis, and will remain a top priority in the framework of amma reform of the Ir reform after the pandemic, which is recommended to the Morrison government to support a rapid economic recovery. With respect to the reasonable steps taken to explain the terms of the agreement, Vice President Hatcher and DP Booth stated that the SO “simply does not explain the rates of pay for new or alternative employees or rosters, casual workers or part-time workers.” This is evidence of the confusing Fair Work Act agreement process, which has resulted in a serious loss of employer confidence in the usefulness and practicability of company agreements. Simplifying and speeding up the system for establishing company agreements has long been a priority reform post for the AMMA and its members. The CFMMEU was forced to launch another legal challenge against unilateral changes to the rolling cycle introduced by BHP Coal at the Saraji mine in the Bowen Basin coalfields in Queensland. The union argues that by exchanging the existing rolling system without consultation, the company is in line with the 2018 company agreement. Full Bench allowed the appeal for two reasons: that the EP did not establish that the agreements had been concluded with boot and that OS had not taken all appropriate measures to explain the terms and consequences of the agreements. The CFMMEU, CEPU and AWU all requested to be consulted on the approval of the company agreements, on the grounds that the agreements were contrary to National Employment Standards (NES), that they had not passed the “Better-off-overall” (BOOT) test and that the OS had not taken different measures prior to the authorization. VP Hatcher and DP Booth noted that there were two “fundamental errors” with the DP`s satisfaction that the agreements had passed the BOOT, suggesting that he relied on an incorrect comparison of wage rates in the agreements with the prevailing bonuses and did not take due account of how the rates would be evaluated among different rosters and classifications. .

. .