ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with dispute under Visy (Smithfield, Warwick, Dandenong, O’Connor) Enterprise Agreement 2016 – contractors worked for respondent for more than 3 months – respondent assessed contractors for employment but did not offer them employment – whether Commission has jurisdiction to determine matter – whether clause 16 is a permitted matter under s.172(1)(a) FW Act as it requires employer to offer employment to employees of third party – whether respondent is required to offer contractors full time permanent employment – jurisdiction determined and upheld under clause 23 of Agreement – Commission noted that terms in an agreement not about permitted maters have no effect due to s.253 – matters pertaining to employment relationship identified in Explanatory Memorandum to Fair Work Bill 2009 – Murray Bridge considered and dismissed – clause 16.1 applied certain limits to use of casual and labour hire employees – clause 16.3 provided that respondent shall offer full-time permanent employment at end of three month period, if a casual employee was engaged for more than three months – Commission held that terms place limits on respondent’s ability to use labour hire workers – held that clause 16.3 dealt with the fact of recruitment not standards or procedures used to select employees – held that clause 16.3 undermines job security and restricts or qualifies respondent’s right to use independent contractors in a way that is not sufficiently related to job security – found that clauses 16.1 and 16.3 are not about permitted matters, except requirement in clause 16.3 to provide information to employees and relevant unions about casual employment – application dismissed. “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Visy Board P/L t/a Visy Board
…
