Aryzta Australia Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 441

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Aryzta Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2024/5292)

ARYZTA AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (NSW) AGREEMENT 2024

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE	SYDNEY, 4 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for approval of the ARYZTA Australia Pty Limited (NSW) Agreement 2024

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement to be known as the ARYZTA Australia Pty Limited (NSW) Agreement 2024 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Aryzta Australia Pty Ltd (Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

Coverage of employee organisation(s)

The United Workers’ Union (UWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188, 190, 193 and 193A of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 11 February 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 June 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aryzta Australia Pty Ltd applied for the approval of an enterprise agreement under section 176 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant company, a significant employer in the food industry, sought to finalise a workplace agreement with its employees. The Fair Work Commission, led by Commissioner O’Brien, was tasked with assessing whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval, including that it provided for fair and efficient workplace relations. The union representing the employees, the Food and Allied Workers Union, contested the application, arguing that certain provisions did not adequately protect the employees' interests.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement provided for fair and appropriate terms and conditions, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining requirement. The Commission also needed to determine whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, particularly in terms of pay and conditions. Another aspect was the extent to which the agreement facilitated efficient workplace relations without disadvantaging the employees. The union's objections centred on specific clauses regarding shift work, overtime, and the resolution of disputes.

The Commission found that the agreement was fair and appropriate, as it offered reasonable terms and conditions for the employees while also meeting the needs of the employer. It was determined that the agreement facilitated efficient workplace relations and did not disadvantage the employees. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement had been reached through good faith bargaining, as both parties had engaged in meaningful discussions and compromises. Consequently, the application was approved, and the agreement was certified as meeting the necessary criteria. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the interests of both employers and employees while ensuring fair and efficient workplace relations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established