Application by Baiada Poultry Pty Limited

[2025] FWCA 1597 [Note: a correction has been issued to this document]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Application by Baiada Poultry Pty Limited

(AG2025/1318)

BAIADA POULTRY PTY LIMITED COOK STREET HATCHERY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025-2029

Poultry processing
COMMISSIONER SLOAN	SYDNEY, 13 MAY 2025

Application for approval of the Baiada Poultry Pty Limited Cook Street Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029

Baiada Poultry Pty Limited has applied for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Baiada Poultry Pty Limited Cook Street Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029 (“Agreement”). The application is made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
The Australian Workers’ Union (“AWU”) was a bargaining representative for the Agreement. It supports the approval of the Agreement.
Baiada has provided an undertaking, a copy of which is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertaking is not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement or to result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The Commission sought the views of the AWU in respect of the undertaking. Pursuant to section 190(3) of the Act, I accept the undertaking. It is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
Some terms of the Agreement might be read as being inconsistent with, and less beneficial to employees than, the National Employment Standards. Namely:
Clause 31.8.1 provides that if an employee is unable to provide prior notification of an absence on carer’s leave, they must notify Baiada “at the first opportunity on the day of the absence”. This is more onerous than section 107(2)(a) of the Act, which requires that notice to be provided “as soon as practicable”. That may not always be on the day of the absence.

Clause 34.4 requires an employee to provide “a medical certificate or statutory declaration to the satisfaction of the Company” for any absence on a working day immediately before or after a public holiday. Depending on the type of leave sought by the employee, this may be more onerous than section 107(3) of the Act, which provides that the employee must provide “evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person” that the absence is for the specified reason.

Clause 34.4 also purports to provide that an employee will not be paid for a public holiday if they are on leave without pay on the days either side of it. This is inconsistent with section 116 of the Act.

Having noted those matters, clause 5.2 of the Agreement provides that where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES, and the NES provides a greater benefit to employees, the NES will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. This should ensure that the clauses to which I have referred are not applied in a manner contrary to the NES. In raising the issues, it is my intention to ensure that this is the case.
Having regard to the undertaking and the material that has been filed in support of the application, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Act as are relevant to the application have been met.
The AWU has given notice under section 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by section 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the AWU.
The Agreement is approved. In accordance with section 54 of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 13 May 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 6 May 2029.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently heard an application by Baiada Poultry Pty Limited for approval of their Cook Street Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029. The company sought to have the agreement, which outlines terms and conditions of employment for workers in their hatchery, approved by the Fair Work Commission. The application was necessary as the agreement must be registered with the Commission to be legally enforceable.

The legal issues before the court centred around whether the enterprise agreement complied with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the agreement had been made in good faith, if it contained only matters that are negotiable, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for enterprise agreements. The application also required consideration of whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" as mandated by the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the agreement complied with all legislative requirements and was made in good faith. It held that the agreement was procedurally sound, contained only negotiable matters, and met the better off overall test. The court was satisfied that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms for the employees, including provisions for wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. The court also considered submissions from the parties and relevant stakeholders, finding that there were no significant concerns that would prevent the agreement from being approved.

In light of the findings, the court approved the Baiada Poultry Pty Limited Cook Street Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2025-2029, granting it registration with the Fair Work Commission. This decision ensures that the agreement can now be enforced and that the terms and conditions set out within it will apply to the employees of the hatchery.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established