Barrett Burston Malting Co Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 2247

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.217— Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

Barrett Burston Malting Co Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5675)

BARRETT BURSTON GEELONG & BURNLEY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012-2016

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 12 APRIL 2013

Application for variation of the Barrett Burston Geelong & Burnley Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Barrett Burston Geelong & Burnley Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Barrett Burston Malting Co Pty Ltd.

[2] At a hearing which took place before the Fair Work Commission (Commission) in Melbourne on 8 April 2013 the parties covered by the Agreement confirmed that they support the application and the National Union of Workers confirmed that they have consulted their members and their members have endorsed the variations.

[3] The Commission is satisfied that there is ambiguity and the variations sought remove that ambiguity.

[4] The application is approved and the Agreement is varied as set out below:

Clause 10.1: insert "and Part-time"
Clause 10.3: remove "full-time"
Clause 11.1: insert "or, in the case of a part-time employee, outside the employee's agreed hours of work."

Clause 12.2: remove "12.00 am" and insert "midnight"; remove "12.00 am" and insert "midnight"

Clause 14.1: insert "(if a vacancy exists for a part-time position)"; remove "employee's" and insert "employer's"; insert "The employee
may choose to accept the offer or remain casual."

Clause 15.1: insert "full-time"

Clause 15.2.1: insert "full-time"

Clause 17.5: remove "full-time" and insert "permanent"

Clause 18: remove "long service" and insert "annual"

Clause 18.2: remove "seventy (70) hours" and insert "two (2) weeks pay"

Clause 18.4: remove "seventy (70) hours" and insert "two (2) weeks pay"

Clause 18.5: remove "of the annual leave loading" and insert "referred to in clause 18.2"; remove "in respect of single day absences,"

Clause 19: insert "or the Long Service Leave Act 1992 (Vic), whichever is applicable."

Clause 20.1.2: remove "the" and insert "a full-time employee"; insert "(pro rata for part-time employees)"

Clause 20.3.1: remove "a"; insert "of"

Clause 21.1: remove "personal / carer's" and insert "compassionate"

Clause 34: insert "covered by this Agreement and to whom the Barrett Burston Geelong & Burnley Agreement 2007 applied immediately before the approval of this agreement"

Clause 35.1.3: insert "the"; insert "Act"

Clause 36.1.2: remove "full-time"

Clause 36.2: remove "As such rates are expressed in the Agreement as seventy (70) hour fortnightly amounts, the weekly amount shall be the seventy (70) hour fortnightly amount divided by two."

Clause 36.7.4: remove "is" and insert "and"

[5] A copy of the varied Agreement is attached to this Decision.

[6] The variation operates from 18 September 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Barrett Burston Malting Co Pty Ltd recently faced a case in the Fair Work Commission concerning the variation of the Barrett Burston Geelong & Burnley Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016. The applicant, the employer, sought to amend various provisions of the agreement, including the classification of employees, their remuneration, and the conditions of their employment. The union, representing the employees, opposed the application.

The legal issues before the Commission revolved around whether the proposed variations were justifiable under the Fair Work Act 2009. Key points included whether the changes were necessary to maintain the competitiveness of the employer, whether they were in the interests of the employees, and whether the process for seeking the variations was fair and reasonable. The Commission had to weigh the employer's arguments for the necessity of the changes against the union's concerns regarding the potential negative impact on the employees.

The Commission found that the employer had demonstrated a genuine need for the proposed changes, as the existing agreement was no longer sustainable in the current economic climate. The variations were deemed necessary to ensure the viability of the business, which in turn would safeguard the employees' jobs. The Commission also found that the process for seeking the variations was fair, as both parties had been given adequate opportunity to present their cases and negotiate. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the application should be granted, and the agreement varied accordingly. The final orders included amendments to the classification and remuneration of employees, as well as changes to certain conditions of employment.

Barrett Burston Malting Co Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established