DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/2792)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BARTEL

ADELAIDE, 5 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement) has been made by Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd (the employer or Agri Labour). The application has been made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is an application for a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The main business of Agri Labour is the supply of labour to horticultural and primary industries and to storage and processing facilities associated with these industries, throughout Australia. Employees are engaged on a casual basis for short periods of time to meet seasonal and other increases in demand. They are most commonly transient workers seeking to maximise their income over the limited period that work is available.

[3] The modern awards relevant to the employees who are covered by the Agreement (collectively referred to as “the relevant modern awards”) are as follows:

Cotton Ginning Award 2010

Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2010

Pastoral Award 2010

Meat Industry Award 2010

Horticultural Award 2010

Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010

Seafood Processing Award 2010

Road Transport and Distribution Award 2010

The Better Off Overall Test

[4] The application for approval of the Agreement stated that the employer considered that the Agreement passed the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT). 1 I issued a Statement of Preliminary Findings on 11 June 2015 identifying concerns in relation to compliance of the Agreement with the statutory requirements and/or matters on which further clarification was sought. On 24 and 26 June 2015, the employer provided written submissions, a statement of Mr Casey Brown, a Director of Agri Labour and a number of undertakings. The application was heard on 26 June 2015.

[5] The provisions of the Agreement which were identified to be of concern in relation to the BOOT were:

The classifications and rates of pay: there are no classification definitions in the Agreement and no reference to the relevant modern award classification definitions. The rate of pay of one classification is lower than the equivalent classification in the relevant modern award. No pay increases are payable over the 4-year life of the Agreement and the relevant modern award rates of pay would exceed the rates of pay under the Agreement from 1 July 2015.

The absence of penalty payments for work performed on weekends and on public holidays where such hours are worked on request of the employee and where such employees establish “a genuine need” to work ordinary hours on these days;

The non-payment of overtime where employees voluntarily agree to work overtime hours;

The absence of a higher duties provision which is a feature of most of the relevant modern awards.

[6] The employer has provided…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 5332
Case: [2015] FWC 5332
Decision Date: 5 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Agri Labour Australia Pty Ltd recently sought approval of its Enterprise Agreement 2015. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary statutory requirements for approval. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of its coverage, content, and procedural fairness. The Commission had to assess if the agreement was made in good faith, whether it covered employees correctly, and if the agreement's terms were fair and reasonable.

The central legal issues revolved around the compliance of the agreement with the statutory framework. Key concerns included whether the agreement had been negotiated genuinely and if it contained all mandated terms and conditions. Furthermore, the Commission had to consider if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and if it met the procedural fairness requirements under the Fair Work Act. The employer argued that the agreement was fair and had been negotiated in good faith, while the employees' representative contended that certain terms were unfair and that the process lacked procedural fairness.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement substantially complied with the statutory requirements. It determined that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that it covered employees correctly. The Commission also found that while some terms were contentious, they were not so unfair as to invalidate the entire agreement. Additionally, the Commission was satisfied that the agreement met the procedural fairness requirements, as the negotiation process was transparent and employees had an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, acknowledging its overall fairness and compliance with the Act.

No further orders were made beyond the approval of the agreement. The Commission's decision effectively resolved the dispute, confirming that the Enterprise Agreement 2015 could proceed as planned.

Orders