Amma Workplace Policy Advisor Tegan Morris (pictured) examines Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union`s (CFMMEU) allegation that Karijini Rail Pty Ltd`s company agreement was not actually accepted by the two coordinated employees. It highlights the legitimate needs of employers to enter into company agreements with smaller cohorts of workers to ensure commercial security and the nuanced application of the New Power of the Fair Work Board (WWC) not to make slight procedural errors. While they underween introductory training in the first two weeks, the staff also participated in the negotiations on the new company agreement. Only three claims presented in the company agreement were more advantageous or were not awarded by the corresponding modern distinction. These rights were the basic rates for pay, overtime and shiftwork. For more information on this decision or advice on corporate negotiations, contact a labour relations specialist at your on-site AMMA office. Agreements with small cohorts of votes continue to be evaluated on the basis of a strict authorization procedure imposed by the FW Act, and employees need to be better off overall under the proposed company agreement. The Vice-President found no other reason that the company agreement had not actually been agreed. It was satisfied that the BOOT and NES issues were being handled by appropriate companies and did not preclude the approval of the company agreement. That decision concerned whether the agreement would have actually been approved if there were no minor procedural or technical error, in accordance with Article 188(1)(a) of the FW Law, in which Karijini did not satisfy the requirements of Article 180(5), in order to adequately explain the terms of the proposed undertaking agreement and its implications.
Vice President Beaumont said the company agreement was not actually agreed upon by the two employees because Karijini did not comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) to ensure that the terms of the agreement were explained to employees. In addition to commercial security, a company agreement offers a certain degree of industrial stability to a company. At the time of the decision to enter into a new company agreement, there were two vacancies under the TRRC and Railtrain hired two locomotive drivers employed by Karijini to fill these vacancies. The Vice-President rejected the CFMMEU`s assertion that the two employees who negotiated the company agreement did not fall under the company agreement because Karijini did not yet have an employment contract. . . .