• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Cited legislation

1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.

There were two procedural wrinkles. First, both certification applications were lodged outside the statutory lodgement period prescribed by s.170LM(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (see [2]). Second, the Commissioner identified a substantive drafting issue: a clause in both agreements (labelled 'Further Agreements and Local Matters' in the two instruments) "appeared to suggest that the agreement could be varied without consideration of the requirements of s.170MD of the Act" (see [3]). That observation generated a request from the Commissioner for clarification from the parties.

At the hearing Tomlinson of the Australian Industry Group, representing Chubb, said the parties did not intend to circumvent the Act and offered to provide a written undertaking clarifying intent (see [4]). The TWU likewise agreed to seek clarification and agreed to the undertaking (see [5]). The employer, through AIG, provided a written undertaking dated 23 September 2002 stating: "[T]he employer makes an undertaking that the intent of the subject clauses were not to circumvent the operation of Section 170MD of the Act and will not be used in such a manner" (see [6]). The TWU confirmed its agreement by correspondence on 24 September 2002 (see [6]).

The Commission exercised its discretion under s.111(1)(r) to extend the lodgement time to 3 September 2002 and, having received and accepted the undertakings pursuant to s.170LV(1), was satisfied that the requirements of the Act and the Rules were met. Certification was granted effective 24 September 2002 and formal certification was to issue in due course (see [2], [7]–[8]).

Why the court decided this way

There are two linked strands to the Commissioner's reasoning.

1. Procedural discretion: The applications were late. The Commissioner explicitly found that, after hearing submissions, he should exercise his discretion under s.111(1)(r) to extend the lodgement period to 3 September 2002 (see [2]). That exercise of administrative discretion cleared the procedural hurdle and allowed the Commission to consider the merits.

2. Remediation by undertaking: The Commissioner's concern was the risk that certain clauses might permit variations without regard to the statutory requirements in s.170MD. Rather than refuse certification or demand re-drafting and re-lodgement, the Commissioner gave the parties an opportunity to clarify. The employer provided a written undertaking (accepted by the union) that the clauses were not intended to circumvent s.170MD and would not be used to do so (see [4]–[6]). The Commissioner found that, "Pursuant to s.170LV(1) of the Act I am satisfied that these undertakings meet the concerns I held in relation to the variation of the agreement" (see [7]). That satisfaction on the part of the Commission was the operative step that allowed formal certification (see [8]).

In short, the Commissioner used the tools available under the Act, an extension of time and acceptance of undertakings, to address both procedural and substantive drafting issues and thereby permit certification.

Before and after state of the law

This decision does not purport to change statutory law. It applies the existing statutory framework in three respects that the text itself references:

• Certification under the Act: the decision proceeds under s.170LJ (certification of agreement) and related certification rules (see [1]).

• Procedural time limits and extension: the applications were lodged after the period described in s.170LM(2); the Commissioner relied upon s.111(1)(r) to extend the time for lodgement (see [2]).

• Variation and undertakings: the Commissioner applied s.170MD as the statutory benchmark for how certified agreements may be varied and used s.170LV(1) as the statutory basis for accepting undertakings from the parties to resolve concerns about clauses (see [3], [7]).

After this decision, the practical takeaways within the Commission's administrative practice are that:

• The Commission will exercise s.111 discretion to rectify late lodgement when satisfied to do so, enabling merits adjudication despite procedural non-compliance (see [2]).

• Where agreement wording raises a genuine concern about compliance with statutory variation requirements (s.170MD), the Commission may accept clear written undertakings from the parties clarifying intent and restricting operation of clauses, and may treat such undertakings as satisfactory under s.170LV(1) to permit certification (see [3]–[7]).

This is an administrative practice point rather than a doctrinal innovation. The decision records the Commission's willingness to accept undertakings as a practical remedy to drafting deficiencies.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Key passage 1, [2]: "Having heard the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the documentation filed with the application I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act and the Rules have been met... I am satisfied that pursuant to s.111(1)(r) I should exercise my discretion and extend the time for lodgement to 3 September 2002."

Plain English: The Commissioner decided the legal requirements for certification were otherwise met and used his statutory power to allow the late applications to be treated as if they had been lodged on time.

Key passage 2, [3]: "The particular clause appeared to suggest that the agreement could be varied without consideration of the requirements of s.170MD of the Act."

Plain English: A clause in each proposed agreement looked like it might let the parties change the agreement without following the law that sets out how certified agreements must be varied.

Key passage 3, [6]: "[T]he employer makes an undertaking that the intent of the subject clauses were not to circumvent the operation of Section 170MD of the Act and will not be used in such a manner."

Plain English: The employer promised in writing that the contentious clause was not meant to avoid the law on variations and that it would not be used to avoid that law.

Key passage 4, [7]: "Pursuant to s.170LV(1) of the Act I am satisfied that these undertakings meet the concerns I held in relation to the variation of the agreement."

Plain English: Using the statutory power that permits acceptance of undertakings, the Commissioner concluded the written promise was enough to remove the problem, so certification could proceed.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is directly relevant where:

• An application to certify an enterprise agreement is lodged late and the applicant seeks extension of time under the Commission's discretion (s.111(1)(r)).

• A certified agreement, or an agreement submitted for certification, contains clauses (such as 'further agreements' or 'local matters' clauses) that, on their face, look capable of allowing variations inconsistent with statutory variation procedures (s.170MD).

• The parties are prepared to provide a clear, written undertaking that the clause will not be used to circumvent the statutory requirements, and the union party agrees.

If those elements are present, the Commission may accept undertakings under s.170LV(1) and proceed to certification without insisting on re-drafting or relodgement, provided the Commissioner is satisfied that the undertaking cures the concern.

How later courts have treated it

This decision itself does not discuss later judicial treatment or subsequent appellate authority. The text contains no citations to later cases or subsequent judicial commentary. To know how subsequent decisions or courts have treated the use of undertakings in certification matters, or the Commission's approach to drafting defects, one would need to search later Commission decisions or judicial authorities. The decision is best read as an administrative application of the statutory powers then available rather than as a binding precedent of wide doctrinal reach.

Still-open questions

Several practical and legal questions remain for practitioners advising parties preparing enterprise agreements:

• Substance versus form: When is an undertaking sufficient, and when does the Commission require an actual amendment to the agreement text? This decision shows acceptance of an undertaking in the specific context of a clause that only "appeared to suggest" possible circumvention; a clearer test or threshold is not articulated in the decision.

• Enforceability and monitoring: The decision records the undertaking but does not discuss monitoring, enforcement mechanisms, or consequences if the undertaking is breached. How the Commission would proceed if the clause were later used in a way inconsistent with the undertaking is not addressed.

• Scope of permissible undertakings: The decision accepts an undertaking that the clause "will not be used" to circumvent s.170MD. It does not discuss whether more detailed undertakings (for example, binding contractual amendments or express exclusion clauses) are required for more serious defects.

• Precedential weight: As an administrative-level certification decision, the weight of the decision as precedent on other Commissioners or courts is not explored. Whether other Commissioners will follow the same pragmatic approach depends on facts and the seriousness of the drafting issue.

• Interaction with statutory text: The decision references s.170MD and s.170LV(1) but does not analyse the legislative policy or limits on undertakings under s.170LV(1). The boundaries of that provision as a vehicle to cure substantive non-compliance remain factual and administrative rather than doctrinally defined in this brief decision.

To resolve these open points in a specific case, practitioners should consider searching subsequent Commission decisions and any judicial review authorities that address the use and sufficiency of undertakings in enterprise agreement certification.

Disclaimer: This is a structured, document-based analysis of the Commission's reasons in PR922886 (Chubb Security Services Limited v Transport Workers' Union of Australia), grounded only in the language of the judgment provided above. It is legal information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you rely on this analysis, or act on it, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.