Australia: Bargaining under the Fair Work Act

The Workplace
Last Updated: 1 March 2010
Article by John Tuck

Some key features of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) are the changes introduced to the collective bargaining framework. We now have concepts such as majority support determinations, scope orders and good faith bargaining requirements. The past few months have seen a number of cases that give guidance on how these collective bargaining elements may operate in practice. It has not all been plain sailing for participants.

In this article we give an overview of some of the more interesting developments to date. The cases bear out the truth of the warning from our colleagues at DLA Piper in the USA that in a good faith bargaining environment you need to be prepared.



Our experience tells us that parties are now aware that bargaining commences in quite a different way under the FW Act. Gone is the concept of the 'bargaining period'. And so typically formal bargaining commences either when an employer gives notice to its employees of their representational rights or when a majority support determination is obtained that triggers the notice. Simple? Well not quite.

Determining the scope of an agreement – LHMU v Coca- Cola

The ability of a union to organise employees to force employers to bargain for an enterprise agreement is a critical feature of the new regime. In particular, for employers that have operated with individual agreements or employee collective agreements, the unions' ability to seek to initiate bargaining and organise around these new rights is significant. The recent bargaining round at Coca- Cola Amatil (Aust) P/L (Coca-Cola) in regards to its South Australian operations provides insight into how a proposed bargaining strategy can be affected by the FW Act.

The effect of a majority support determination

In August last year, following some discussions with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (LHMU), Coca- Cola issued notices of employee representation rights that identified three categories of employee that it proposed be covered by three separate agreements – namely employees in production, warehousing and maintenance. This is a common way for industrial arrangements to be organised in the FMCG industry and in manufacturing. The notices also identified certain employees to be excluded from the production agreement. The LHMU proposed a single agreement covering the site, including employees Coca-Cola sought to exclude. The dispute raised the issue of whether a majority support determination can set the scope for an agreement or whether that is a separate issue that must be dealt with in an application under the scope provisions.

In the first Coca-Cola case of 19 August 2009 before Fair Work Australia (FWA) ([2009] FWA 101), FWA Senior Deputy President O'Callaghan found that if bargaining has commenced for a proposed enterprise agreement the appropriate tool to resolve issues on coverage are scope orders. In the Coca-Cola decision handed down on October 2009 ([2009] FWAFB 668), the LHMU unsuccessfully appealed this decision. The Full Bench of FWA was clear that a majority support determination does not determine the scope of bargaining any more than it determines the terms and conditions to apply.

The scope of the proposed enterprise agreement remained an issue and shortly after 19 August, the LHMU sought bargaining orders to prevent Coca-Cola from restricting its syrup room, alcohol testing and QA positions to new technical positions that would be salaried and not covered by any enterprise agreement. In the Coca-Cola decision handed down on 31 August 2009 ([2009] FWA 153), the LHMU argued that the restructure by the company amounted to conduct that was capricious and unfair and undermined bargaining. Although Coca-Cola made certain undertakings about its proposal that led O'Callaghan SDP to refuse the application, his Honour made some important observations. O'Callaghan SDP stated that the proposed restructure was not capricious, as it was undertaken in accordance with the consultation provisions in the relevant industrial instrument. In addition, as the consultation required Coca-Cola to consider the union response to the proposal, it was not unfair.

The scope order dispute

The decision of FWA, in another Coca-Cola case ([2009] FWA 818) then considered whether to make a scope order that there be a single agreement. This required an assessment of the state of the negotiations. Again the LHMU failed to persuade FWA of its position. The reasons of O'Callaghan SDP highlight the importance of being able to establish in clear terms that a scope order will promote fair and efficient bargaining. A preference for one type of arrangement over another will not suffice unless it is also supported by evidence of why, as in this case, three agreements were preventing negotiations or gave rise to the risk of wage anomalies. Bald assertions are not enough.

The petitioning process – CFMEU v Mammoet Pty Ltd

The decision in CFMEU v Mammoet Pty Ltd [2009] FWA 1945 considered the position where an employer questions the integrity of a petition claiming majority support.

In this case, the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied for a majority support determination for employees of Mammoet. Mammoet works on the Woodside Pluto LNG Project in Western Australia. Mammoet's concerns related to the integrity of the CFMEU petition. The case is important in that Mammoet raised some interesting issues on the requirement in section 237(2)(a) of the FW Act that the FWA must be satisfied that a majority of employees want to bargain. What will be sufficient proof?

In this case, the employer argued that the method of handing a petition around in the presence of a union delegate and fellow employees was not a reliable method to obtain the true views of employees. Further, Mammoet argued that the employees had not had a proper opportunity to consider the petition or seek advice and they had no privacy in making their decision. Mammoet highlighted the inherent conflict of interest of the union seeking a petition to organise employees.

FWA Deputy President McCarthy rejected the CFMEU's argument. While his Honour stated that a petition of this nature should ordinarily satisfy the requirements in the FW Act, he noted that the matters raised by the employer had both substance and merit. The case suggests that the mere production of a petition is open to challenge if there are good grounds to suggest that its integrity is in question.


  • A majority support determination does not determine the scope of an agreement.
  • Employers may have grounds to question the evidence of majority support put forward by a bargaining representative.
  • Before a scope order can be obtained, the prerequisites in the FW Act must be satisfied and the evidence must establish that the making of an order will promote fair and efficient bargaining. Mere preferences for a particular scope on their own do not satisfy this requirement.



Having kicked off bargaining, issues arise regarding what it means to act in good faith. This matter has been considered by FWA in a number of cases. The cases illustrate that a well-prepared and executed bargaining strategy is vital.

At issue early was the question of communication with employees. In the USA this is a fraught subject and the formal bargaining processes place restrictions on what would be normal practice between an employer and its employees. The Australian cases to date recognise the continued right of employers to communicate directly with employees. But it is not without some additional requirements during a period of negotiation.

Putting agreements to the vote – You need to be transparent

Before the FW Act, it was not uncommon during the bargaining process for an employer to seek the approval of a proposed agreement directly from its employees. Often this occurred when negotiations with a union had stalled. There are now limits to this option under the good faith bargaining provisions as shown in a number of recent cases.

In National Union of Workers v Defries Industries Pty Ltd [2009] FWA 88, FWA considered an application by the National Union of Workers to stop a proposed ballot of Defries employees. The application alleged that the employer's conduct in distributing a draft agreement and advising the date for a vote was in bad faith because it was capricious or unfair conduct (section 228(1)(e)) as it undermined the position of the bargaining representative. FWA Commissioner Whelan stated that putting an agreement to the vote indicates the employer considered bargaining to be at an end and that it no longer intends to bargain. The employer did so without telling the union and it denied the union the opportunity to propose any further amendments. The Commissioner found that this conduct amounted to unfair conduct by undermining freedom of association and collective bargaining. His Honour granted the order.

The issue was again raised before Commissioner Whelan in Alphington Aged Care and Sisters of St Joseph Health Care Services (Vic) t/a Mary McKillop Aged Care; ANF [2009] FWA 301. Alphington Aged Care and Mary McKillop Aged Care made an application for the approval of their respective enterprise agreements. The Australian Nursing Federation (ANF), which was the bargaining representative for some employees, opposed approval. ANF's complaint was that the employers put their agreements to the vote whilst continuing to deal with the union as if the processes were separate. Notice again was not given. Again the Commissioner found in favour of the union.

In each case the issue concerned a failure to give notice to the bargaining representatives of an intention to put the agreement to a vote. It is important to recognise that bargaining is at an end after the union, as bargaining representative, has had a proper opportunity to put forward its position(s).

In a more recent case, Commissioner Smith made an interim order postponing a vote in AMWU and APESMA v DTS Food Laboratories [2009] FWA 1854. The unions sought an order for the postponement of a proposed vote of employees on whether to approve an enterprise agreement. The description of the employer's conduct in putting the proposed agreement to the vote was that it was unilateral, misleading, sought to exclude certain employees from its scope and by doing so the conduct was capricious and unfair.

Commissioner Smith focussed on whether the negotiations had reached an impasse. His Honour recognised that the FW Act does not require an agreement to be reached or concessions made, but stated that sending an agreement out for a vote prior to a failure in negotiations, would not be dealing openly and honestly with those who have been charged with the responsibility of seeking to reach agreement.

The lessons for employers is that whilst you can seek the approval of an agreement when negotiations have reached an impasse, you need to first take steps to ensure you communicate that intention and act transparently.

Employers can communicate directly with employees

Employers will be comforted by two FWA decisions that recognised the good management practice of directly communicating with staff.

In Queensland Nurses Union of Employees v Lourdes Home for the Aged [2009] FWA 1553, the FWA recognised that an employer can seek its employees' views on whether they should negotiate a new agreement. The FWA dismissed the application by the union that the employer had acted in bad faith by organising a ballot of its employees to see whether they supported bargaining for a new agreement, prior to any bargaining taking place.

In LHMU v Mingara Recreation Club Ltd [2009] FWA 1442, FWA Vice President Watson dismissed an application for good faith bargaining orders that would have permitted the union to attend any meetings relevant to the negotiations for a new agreement. His Honour noted that the FW Act requires genuine recognition of a bargaining representative and genuine bargaining. But it does not preclude concurrent communication and discussions with employees. There is still scope for an employer to meet with employees in the absence of the bargaining representative. This is a step away from the recommendation made by FWA Senior Deputy President Drake in the early days after the commencement of the FW Act in a matter involving bargaining at Transfield.

Employers are not required to pay for employee meetings with the union

In LHMU v Foster's Australia Ltd [2009] FWA 750 the company successfully opposed a union bid for bargaining orders that would have forced the company to allow workers at one of its breweries to hold paid mass meetings to discuss their wage negotiations and possible industrial action. In this case, the company, represented by DLA Phillips Fox, successfully argued that it was entitled to reject a request for paid meetings. The company had long had a protocol in place that it would not allow mass meetings where workers planned to discuss or organise industrial action against the company.

FWA Senior Deputy President Kaufman rejected the union's application for the bargaining order, saying that it was not capricious for an employer to refuse to extend the 'indulgence' to allow the paid meetings when they were, at least in part, held to give a union the opportunity to convince members to vote in favour of protected industrial action.


  • Preparation is not only key, but it can give you an edge in negotiations and protect your strategy. You need to understand the process in which your organisation is involved as more and more union bargaining representatives do.
  • You should consider having a strategy for clear and open communication with your employees during negotiations. This strategy will need to comply with your good faith bargaining obligations or you will run foul of the FW Act.
  • If negotiations reach an impasse you may want to seek approval of the proposed enterprise agreement from your employees. However notice of an intention to put the agreement to an employee vote should be provided to bargaining representatives.



Enterprise agreements are now made between an employer and its employees. An agreement (excluding a greenfields agreement) is made when a majority of employees that will be covered by the agreement vote to approve it. Before the vote, there are a number of important pre-approval processes. Employees must have access to the proposed agreement for seven days, they must also have the terms of the agreement explained to them and any vote must not be conducted until at least 21 days after the last giving of the notice of representation rights. These are important matters to get right and recent decisions of FWA bear this out.

Explaining the agreement is still important

The FWA in Class Electrical Services Pty Ltd v CEPU [2009] FWA 1541 reminds us that an employer must explain to their employees the differences between their current conditions and those that apply under a proposed enterprise agreement. This is part of the pre-approval process.

In this case, the company had met with employees. However Commissioner Cargill formed the view that while the FW Act did not explicitly require an employer to go through the differences between the two agreements, any proper explanation of the effect of a term (such as one that changed redundancy entitlements) necessarily involved some comparison with existing arrangements. Employers must still take reasonable steps to ensure the terms of the agreement and the effect of those terms are explained to employees. As this did not happen in this case the mandatory pre-approval steps had not been met and the agreement was not approved.

The Federal Court decision in Blue Star Pacific has been overturned in Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd v CEPU [2009] FCAFC 187. At first instance, the Federal Court had found that in regards to the obligations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act) to allow employees a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they wanted to approve an agreement, employees should have the opportunity to meet and confer as a collective group. The Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the appeal. In three separate judgments the Court found that a reasonable opportunity to decide does not give rise to a universal or general requirement to conduct a meeting. The steps inevitably vary from employer to employer, but many will be relieved that collective meetings are not necessarily a requirement. The case remains relevant for employers who made agreements before 1 July 2009 and had concerns whether the agreements were valid. It continues to be important as a number of unions had sought to rely on the decision for other cases under the FW Act.

Dispute clauses are now mandatory and are not subject to the parties' consent

When assessing whether an enterprise agreement is approved, FWA must be satisfied that certain requirements are met. One requirement is that the agreement includes a term about settling disputes. We have previously highlighted the expanded role given to FWA under section 186(6) of the FW Act in that the dispute clause in an agreement now extends to disputes on any matters arising under the agreement and in relation to the NES.

Previously, dispute terms have had a far more limited role. Under section 170LW of the WR Act the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was limited to disputes over the application of the agreement and there was no requirement that the settlement clause permit arbitration, even by consent. The FW Act now requires a term that '...requires or allows FWA settle disputes...' .

Recently Woolworths sought the approval of an enterprise agreement made between it and its employees in which a union was a bargaining representative. FWA raised a concern about the term on settling disputes.

The disputes clause provided a common formula for the escalation of disputes. Either party was permitted to refer a matter to FWA for conciliation. If the matter remained unresolved, then there was a further escalation point where the parties may agree to have the matter arbitrated by FWA.

Commissioner Smith rejected this clause in his decision Woolworths Ltd trading as Produce and Recycling Distribution Centre [2010] FWA 30. Commissioner Smith drew a number of distinctions between the requirements in the FW Act as opposed to the requirement that prevailed under the WR Act. His Honour held that the language 'requires or allows' does not create discretion with the makers of the agreement whether or not to have a disputes procedure at all. In addition, the use of the term 'to settle' indicates a direction to an action.

This decision is important to many employers. It is common for arbitration to be the subject of agreement in enterprise agreements and many of the agreements already approved by FWA have such clauses. Unlike the provisions regarding the mandatory consultation term, there is no default to a model dispute settlement provision where the clause is found not to meet the requirements in the FW Act.

The matter was appealed. The appeal was heard on Friday 5 February 2010. At the time of writing, the decision of the Full Bench had not been delivered.

Allowing time for employee approval

FWA has clarified the proper approach to the calculation of the 21 day period required before a request can be made to employees to approve a proposed enterprise agreement. Section 181 of the FW Act states that a request to employees to approve a proposed enterprise agreement must not be made until at least 21 days after the day on which the last notice under section 173(1) which deals with notice of employee representational rights has been given. In Lofa Pty Ltd [2009] FWA 1348, FWA Senior Deputy President Richards found that an agreement approved on the 21st day was not able to be approved by FWA. The proper calculation commences on the following day after the last day on which notice was given.

It follows that the request to approve an agreement cannot take place until the 22nd day, at the earliest.


We have prepared guides to help our clients understand the changes introduced by the FW Act - The Workplace Guide to Bargaining under the Fair Work Act and the Workplace Guide to Industrial Action. If you would like to receive a copy of either guide please contact Rebecca Veli at

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.