| [2024] FWCA 4121 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Baiada Poultry Pty Limited
(AG2024/4067)
BAIADA POULTRY PTY LTD TAMWORTH PLANT (PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYEES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024-2028
| Poultry processing | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS | SYDNEY, 26 NOVEMBER 2024 |
Application for approval of the Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd Tamworth Plant (Production and Distribution Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2024-2028
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd Tamworth Plant (Production and Distribution Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2024-2028 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Baiada Poultry Pty Limited (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
After receipt of the application, I raised a concern with the Applicant in relation to the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) that was issued to employees who would be covered by the Agreement. The NERR referred to the employees covered by the proposed agreement as those at the Tamworth plant ‘who perform duties covered by this agreement.’ The Applicant submitted that the employees who received the NERR were those covered by a current enterprise agreement, the Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd Tamworth Plant (Production and Distribution) Enterprise Agreement 2020-2024 and were employed in classifications under that agreement. The Applicant said that the proposed agreement was effectively a replacement agreement for the current agreement and one which largely replicates the coverage and classifications of the current agreement. I am satisfied in the circumstances that the reference in the NERR to ‘this agreement’ is a minor technical error for the purposes of s.188(5) and that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error. I propose to disregard the error under s.188(5).
The Applicant has provided written undertakings (Annexure A). In accordance with s.190(4) of the Act the views of the bargaining representatives for the agreement were sought in relation to the undertakings. 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.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as is relevant to this application for approval has been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
I note that Clause 5.2 of the Agreement provides that where there is an inconsistency between this Agreement and the National Employment Standards (NES), and the NES provides a greater benefit, the NES provision will apply to the extent of the inconsistency.
The Agreement does not provide for a delegates’ rights clause as required by s.205A(1) of the Act. In accordance with s.201(1A), I note that clause 26A, Workplace delegates’ rights, in the Poultry Processing Award 2020 is to be taken to be a term of the Agreement.
The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration giving 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 AMIEU.
The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2028.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE526889 PR781662>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Baiada Poultry Pty Limited [2024] FWCA 4121
- Case
- [2024] FWCA 4121
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed agreement adequately provided for the terms and conditions of employment, and if it contained any provisions that were contrary to the public interest or unfair to the employees. The court also had to assess whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided for proper mechanisms to resolve workplace disputes. Furthermore, the court needed to ensure that the agreement did not undermine the rights of employees to be free from discrimination and harassment.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement was fair and appropriate. The court noted that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and addressed the needs of both the employees and the employer. It contained provisions that adequately covered the terms and conditions of employment and included mechanisms for resolving workplace disputes. The court concluded that the agreement did not contain any provisions that were contrary to the public interest or unfair to the employees, and it appropriately balanced the rights and interests of both parties. Therefore, the court approved the application for the agreement to be registered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.