Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Toll Priority - Transport Workers Agreement 2005 [2005] NSWIRComm 377 APPLICANT Toll Transport Pty Ltd t/as Toll Priority PARTIES: RESPONDENT Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales FILE NUMBER(S): 4337 of 2005 CORAM: Sams DP CATCHWORDS: Application for approval of enterprise agreement - agreement to cover transport drivers - wage increases - agreement to have retrospective application - agreement approved for registration. Industrial Relations Act 1996 Anti Discrimination Act 1977 LEGISLATION CITED: AWARD Transport Industry (State) Award 343 IG 390 CASES CITED: Review of the Principles for Approval of Enterprise Agreements (2000) 101 IR 332 HEARING DATES: 08/29/2005 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 08/29/2005 APPLICANT Mr J Simpson, Solicitor Clayton Utz Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P Murray Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales JUDGMENT: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM : SAMS, DP 29 August 2005 Matter No. IRC05/4337 TOLL PRIORITY - TRANSPORT WORKERS AGREEMENT 2005 Application by Toll Transport Pty Ltd t/as Toll Priority for approval of enterprise agreement EX TEMPORE DECISION [2005] NSWIRComm 377 1 Approval is sought from the Commission, pursuant to Div 2 Pt 2 ch 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ('the Act') for the approval of an enterprise agreement between Toll Transport Pty Ltd t/as Toll Priority and the Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales. The application was filed on 18 August 2005 and listed for hearing on 29 August, thereby fulfilling the requirements of s34(3) of the Act. 2 At the hearing of the matter, Mr J Simpson, solicitor, appeared for the applicant and Mr P Murray represented the respondent Union. 3 Before approving an enterprise agreement, the Commission must be satisfied that the statutory requirements, as outlined in the Industrial Relations Act 1996, the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 and the Enterprise Agreement Principles formulated by a Full Bench of the Commission in Review of the Principles for Approval of Enterprise Agreements (2000) 101 IR 332 have been satisfied. 4 The application is accompanied by the required affidavit, deposed to by Mr M Valkenburg, State Manager of Toll Priority. The affidavit sets out the relevant matters provided for in the Act and the Commission's Principles governing the approval process for enterprise agreements. 5 The Agreement is to cover approximately 150 employees who would be otherwise employed pursuant to the terms of the Transport Industry (State) Award and the Agreement is to operate in conjunction with that Award. 6 The main purpose of the Agreement is to provide for wage increases totalling 15 per cent over the life of the agreement with three increases being provided on 1 January of each year commencing in 2005. 7 Having heard the submissions of the parties and upon reviewing the terms of the Agreement, I am satisfied that the parties understand the effect of their Agreement, that the Agreement was not entered into under duress, and that there is no net detriment to the employees otherwise bound by the terms and conditions of the relevant Award. 8 In all other respects I am satisfied that the legislative requirements for approval have been met and the Commission's Principles dealing with Enterprise Agreements have been complied with. 9 In accordance with previous decisions of the Commission, there is no legislative prohibition for enterprise agreements having retrospective operation and the parties request that the agreement operates from 1 January this year and remain in force for a period of three years thereafter. 10 Pursuant, therefore, to s35 of the Act, I approve an Enterprise Agreement to be known as the Toll Priority Transport Workers Agreement 2005. The agreement is to take effect from 1 January 2005 and to remain in force for a period of three years thereafter. 11 These proceedings are thereby concluded. Peter J Sams, AM Deputy President DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.