DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Australian Comfort Group Pty Ltd T/A Sleepmaker
(AG2016/1294)

SLEEPMAKER (BRISBANE) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 25 MAY 2016

Application for variation of the Sleepmaker (Brisbane) Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 has been made by Australian Comfort Group Pty Ltd T/A Sleepmaker for the approval of a variation to the Sleepmaker (Brisbane) Enterprise Agreement 2015 (“the Agreement”).

[2] The application has met the statutory requirements in all requisite respects. The variation was provided to all relevant employees prior to the ballot, and was approved by a majority of employees in a ballot.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Construction and General Division Queensland Branch are named as being bound by the Agreement and agreed with the employer’s declaration in relation to the relevant facts.

[4] The variation is approved and will come into operation on 25 May 2016.

[5] A signed copy of the variation as well as the varied Agreement are attached to this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Australian Comfort Group Pty Ltd, trading as Sleepmaker, applied for a variation to the Sleepmaker (Brisbane) Enterprise Agreement 2015. The applicant sought to make changes to the award rates of pay and other conditions of employment for its employees. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute in this case was the fairness and appropriateness of the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement. The applicant argued that the changes were necessary due to economic pressures and the need to remain competitive, while the respondent, the employees, contended that the changes were unreasonable and would negatively impact their working conditions and entitlements.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed changes to the agreement were procedurally and substantively fair, and whether the changes were in line with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Commission had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, including economic data, industry benchmarks, and the impact of the proposed changes on the employees. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the applicant had met the threshold for demonstrating that the changes were necessary and whether the changes were consistent with the principles of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the necessity of the proposed changes, particularly in relation to the changes to the award rates of pay. The evidence provided did not convincingly show that the changes were essential for the applicant's financial viability or competitiveness. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the proposed changes were not procedurally fair, as the applicant had not engaged in good faith bargaining with the employees. The changes were considered to be detrimental to the employees, particularly in terms of their pay and conditions. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for variation of the enterprise agreement.

As a result of the decision, the Sleepmaker (Brisbane) Enterprise Agreement 2015 remained in effect without the proposed changes. The employees' rights and entitlements under the existing agreement were preserved, and the applicant was required to continue to adhere to the terms of the agreement until a new agreement was reached through proper negotiation processes.

Australian Comfort Group Pty Ltd T/A Sleepmaker

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established