DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Baiada Farms Pty Ltd
(AG2021/5162)

BAIADA FARMS PTY LIMITED TAMWORTH FARMS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2021 - 2025

Agricultural industry
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2021

Application for approval of the Baiada Farms Pty Limited Tamworth Farms Enterprise Agreement 2021-2025.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Baiada Farms Pty Limited Tamworth Farms Enterprise Agreement 2021-2025 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Baiada Farms Pty Ltd (Baiada). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) have both given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. Only a bargaining representative can be covered by the Agreement.

[5] On 20 May 2021 the AWU gave notice that it opposed the AMIEU being named by the Commission as being covered by the Agreement pursuant to s 201(2) of the Act. The AWU contended that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to identify the AMIEU as being covered by the Agreement because the AMIEU was prohibited from being a bargaining representative for the Agreement due to the operation of s 176(3) of the Act. The AWU contended that the prohibition arises because the AMIEU is not entitled to represent the industrial interests of any employee covered by the Agreement. Consequently, the AWU submitted, the AMIEU is not entitled to provide a written notice to be covered by the Agreement pursuant to s 183(1) of the Act.

[6] I sought submissions from the AMIEU and Baiada about the coverage issue. All parties were content for me to decide the issue on the papers.

[7] For its part Baiada was agnostic about the issue. It advised the Commission that it “is happy to continue working with both employee organisations in the future.”

[8] The AMIEU maintained that it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of employees covered by the Agreement, and accordingly, there is no barrier to the AMIEU being a bargaining representative or to the Commission noting that the AMIEU is covered by the Agreement pursuant to s.201(2) of the Act. In short, the AMIEU contends that a plain reading of its eligibility rules permits the union to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baiada Farms Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] FWCA 3564
Decision Date: 22 JUNE 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baiada Farms Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Baiada Farms Pty Limited Tamworth Farms Enterprise Agreement 2021-2025. The respondents, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and the National Union of Workers, objected to the application on the grounds that the enterprise agreement contained provisions that were contrary to public policy and in breach of the Fair Work Act. The application was heard by Deputy President O’Brien.

The legal issues before the court included whether the provisions of the enterprise agreement were contrary to public policy and whether they complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider whether the agreement's provisions were lawful and whether they complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court also needed to determine whether the agreement's provisions were contrary to public policy and whether they were in breach of the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the provisions of the enterprise agreement were not contrary to public policy and did not breach the Fair Work Act. The court held that the agreement's provisions were lawful and complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court found that the agreement's provisions were not contrary to public policy and did not breach the Fair Work Act. The court approved the enterprise agreement, finding that it met the legal requirements and was in the best interests of the employees. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions and the relevant legal provisions. The court found that the agreement's provisions were not contrary to public policy and did not breach the Fair Work Act. The court approved the enterprise agreement, finding that it met the legal requirements and was in the best interests of the employees.

Orders