Aldi Foods Pty Limited - [2024] FWCA 3774

[2024] FWCA 3774

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Aldi Foods Pty Limited

(AG2024/3190)

ALDI DANGENONG AGREEMENT 2024

Retail industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN	MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2024

Application for approval of the ALDI Dandenong Agreement 2024

Aldi Foods Pty Limited (Aldi) has made an application under s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for approval of the ALDI Dandenong Agreement 2024 (Agreement). The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) was a bargaining representative for employees covered by the Agreement. In a form F18 declaration filed in the Commission, the SDA submitted that the Agreement did not pass the ‘better off overall test’ (BOOT) when measured against the General Retail Industry Award 2020 (Retail Award) or the Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2020 (Storage Award), and that it could not be approved without undertakings (see ss 186(2)(d), 190 and 193 of the Act).

The parties filed submissions and evidence in accordance with my directions. I then heard the application on 15 and 23 October 2024. Following the first day of hearing, the parties filed further materials, and the scope of the SDA’s objection narrowed as a result of certain contentions no longer being pressed.

Store managers, assistant store managers and duty store managers

The SDA initially contended that the Agreement did not pass the BOOT in relation to employees employed under the Agreement as store managers, assistant store managers and duty store managers because their rate of pay under the Agreement was lower than the corresponding rate under the Retail Award. It said that the classification matching provided by Aldi in its F17 was incorrect. This had indicated that a store manager equated to award level 6, that an assistant store manager was equivalent to award level 4, and that a duty store manager corresponded to award level 3. The SDA contended that the appropriate classifications for these roles under the Retail Award were levels 8, 6 and 6 respectively. The SDA later advised the Commission that, while it did not accept that store managers and assistant store managers were properly matched to levels 6 and 4 of the Retail Award, it no longer pressed its contention that they should be matched to levels 8 and 6 as the Commission could be satisfied that their pay under the Agreement was sufficient to meet these levels in most foreseeable scenarios. The SDA pressed its contention that duty store managers should be compared to the award level 6, or at least the award level 4. I will proceed to consider the correct classification of all store managers because the appropriate classification matching for duty store managers should be undertaken in the context of the relevant classification structures as a whole.

The evidence of Ali Amin, SDA industrial officer, was that in his experience Aldi stores were more complex than small independent supermarkets and that many had discrete sections for the sale of alcohol or other types of products for sale. He said that in his experience…

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 Aldi Foods Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Aldi Foods Pty Limited [2024] FWCA 3774
Case: [2024] FWCA 3774
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Aldi Foods Pty Limited, sought approval of the ALDI Dandenong Agreement 2024, a workplace agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The agreement in question was contested by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA), who argued that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed agreement complied with the Act's standards. This involved determining whether the agreement contained all necessary terms, was free from prohibited content, and met the "better off overall test" that ensures employees are no worse off than under the relevant industrial instrument. The court also considered whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated and whether it was consistent with the Act's objectives of promoting harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations.

The Fair Work Commission found that the ALDI Dandenong Agreement 2024 met all the statutory requirements. The agreement was comprehensive, free from prohibited content, and ensured that employees were no worse off overall. The Commission also determined that the agreement had been fairly negotiated and aligned with the objectives of the Fair Work Act. Therefore, the Commission approved the agreement as compliant with the legislative framework.

In approving the agreement, the Commission issued an order that the ALDI Dandenong Agreement 2024 be approved in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision has effectively established the terms and conditions of employment for the relevant employees under the new agreement.

Orders