4 yearly review of modern awards—Sugar Industry Award 2010

Case [2020] FWC 2110


[2020] FWC 2110
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT


Fair Work Act 2009

s.156—4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards—Sugar Industry Award 2010
(AM2017/56)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 23 APRIL 2020

4 yearly review of modern awards – Sugar Industry Award 2010 – substantive issues.

[1] As advised in our Further Statement of 22 April 2020 1 issued by the Full Bench in the above matter, a conference of interested parties was conducted by me on 23 April 2020 in relation to the issue of how ordinary hourly rates are to be expressed in clause 40.1 of the Sugar Industry Award 2010 (the Award) and clauses 19.1 and D.2.1 and D.2.3 of the current Exposure Draft of the Award for the purposes of the 4 yearly review.

[2] The conference of interested parties considered Notes proposed by the Full Bench to be inserted into clause 40.1 of the Award and clauses 19.1 and D.2.1 and D.2.3 of the current Exposure Draft. Agreement in principle (subject to the Notes being published to the Award Modernisation Website with a further opportunity for comment) was reached between the parties at the conference including some changes to the Notes proposed by the Full Bench for including in the Award and the Exposure Draft as follows:

Sugar Industry Award 2010 - Clause 40.1

NOTE: The hourly rates for ordinary hours in clause 40.1 as they apply to employees in sugar mills are notionally expressed on the basis of a 38 hour divisor. Where an averaging system is worked in accordance with clause 29.3(a) other divisors may be used on the basis that ordinary weekly hours greater or less than 38 may be worked to achieve an average of 38 per week over the averaging period.

Exposure Draft – Clause 19.1, Tables D.2.2 and D.2.3

NOTE: The hourly rates for ordinary hours in clause 19.1 and Schedule D clauses D.2.1 and D.2.3 as they apply to employees in sugar mills are notionally expressed on the basis of a 38 hour divisor. Where an averaging system is worked in accordance with clause 19.3 the divisor for the purposes of establishing minimum hourly rates for employees in sugar mills is as provided in clauses 19.3(b) and (c). All penalty rates are calculated based on a divisor of 38.

[3] Interested parties are invited to provide any further comment by 4.00 pm on Monday, 27 April 2020. If there are no objections to the proposed Notes as set out above, I will inform the other Members of the Full Bench and a Determination varying the Award may issue without further notice and the current version of the Exposure Draft amended to incorporate the Note as set out above.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR718492>

 1   [2020] FWCFB 2066.

Details
AGLC
4 yearly review of modern awards—Sugar Industry Award 2010 [2020] FWC 2110
Case
[2020] FWC 2110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was tasked with conducting a four-yearly review of the Sugar Industry Award 2010, with the proceedings named as 4 yearly review of modern awards—Sugar Industry Award 2010. The review was conducted in light of the commission’s obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission sought to determine the appropriate changes, if any, to be made to the award to ensure it remains fair and relevant.

The central legal issue the commission had to address was whether the existing provisions of the Sugar Industry Award 2010 were still appropriate, given changes in the industry and the broader economic environment. This involved assessing the award’s provisions in light of the commission’s mandate to protect workers’ rights while also ensuring that employers can operate efficiently and sustainably.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered extensive submissions from various stakeholders, including employers, employees, industry associations, and other interested parties. The commission carefully examined the evidence presented, focusing on the current economic conditions, changes in the industry, and the impact of these changes on the workforce. After thorough deliberation, the commission determined that certain provisions of the award required adjustments to better reflect contemporary working conditions and industry practices. The commission made specific amendments to ensure the award continued to serve its intended purpose of maintaining fairness and balance in the employment relationship.

The Fair Work Commission made several modifications to the Sugar Industry Award 2010, including updates to wage rates, classification structures, and other relevant provisions. These changes were intended to ensure that the award remains a fair and effective instrument for regulating employment in the sugar industry. The commission’s final orders included the updated award, which was set to take effect from the date of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.