ALDI Foods Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 4028

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

ALDI Foods Pty Ltd
(AG2013/1205)

ALDI PRESTONS AGREEMENT 2013

Retail industry
JUSTICE BOULTON, SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT	SYDNEY, 21 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the ALDI Prestons Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ALDI Prestons Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The terms of the Agreement are substantially similar to those of the ALDI Minchinbury Agreement 2012 (the Minchinbury Agreement). 1 In the proceedings relating to the application for approval of the Minchinbury Agreement, I expressed a concern that the provisions relating to the payment for leave may be detrimental to employees when compared to the National Employment Standards (see ss.55 and 186(2)(c) of the Act).2 Due to the similarity between the relevant provisions of the two agreements, the same concern arises with respect to the Agreement.

[3] A proposed employer undertaking has been provided by ALDI Foods Pty Ltd in relation to payment for leave under the Agreement (see attachment A). The proposed undertaking was attached to the Notice of Listing when the application for approval of the Agreement was listed for Hearing on the Papers. The Notice directed any interested party that wished to make its views known in relation to the undertaking to contact my chambers before the listed time. The Notice was sent to the only organisation which the Fair Work Commission knows to be a bargaining representative for the Agreement, namely, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), as well as to the other employee organisations that made submissions in relation to the Minchinbury Agreement.

[4] No party sought to make any comment in relation to the proposed undertaking. I am satisfied that the undertaking addresses my concern in relation to the clauses of the Agreement dealing with payment for leave, and that it will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement or result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertaking has been attached to the Agreement and will be taken to be a term of the Agreement pursuant to s.191 of the Act.

[5] For reasons similar to those given in relation to the Minchinbury Agreement, 3 I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 that are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[6] The SDA, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the organisation.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 28 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 June 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Attachment A

1 AE401806.

2 [2013] FWC 3495 at [68]-[73].

3 See [2013] FWC 3495; [2013] FWCA 3837.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ALDI Foods Pty Ltd recently had its application for approval of the ALDI Prestons Agreement 2013 heard by the Fair Work Commission. This agreement, intended to govern the terms and conditions of employment for ALDI employees in Prestons, New South Wales, was the subject of contention. The case arose due to disputes between ALDI Foods and its employees regarding the terms of the proposed agreement. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement should be approved or not.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the agreement met the criteria for approval as stipulated under the Fair Work Act 2009. This included assessing whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms, and if it had been made in good faith. The Commission also considered whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees, including provisions for flexible working arrangements and protections against unfair dismissal. The fairness and reasonableness of the agreement's provisions were central to the determination.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including submissions and witness testimonies. The Commission found that while the agreement generally provided fair and reasonable terms, certain provisions needed to be amended to better protect employees. The Commission approved the agreement with modifications to specific clauses, ensuring they aligned more closely with the statutory protections and fair work principles. The final decision was communicated, and the amended agreement was approved, subject to the conditions set by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established