Berri Limited

[2014] FWCA 212

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 9 January 2014.

The year of the agreement is corrected in paragraph [1]

Bronwyn Brown

Associate to DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

Dated 13 January 2014

[2014] FWCA 212

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Berri Limited
(AG2013/10518)

LION LYTTON ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 9 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Lion Lytton Enterprise Agreement 2010.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Lion Lytton Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Fair Work Commission notes and accepts the undertaking provided by the employer and it is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[4] The National Union of Workers, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 16 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is1 October 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Berri Limited applied for approval of the Lion Lytton Enterprise Agreement 2010. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the process leading to the agreement, particularly whether employees had been adequately consulted. The company argued that the agreement had been reached through proper consultation and negotiation processes, while the union claimed that the company had not genuinely consulted with the employees and had failed to provide necessary information. The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically the obligations of employers to consult with employees and provide information in good faith. The Commission examined whether the company had met its legal obligations regarding consultation and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the agreement process.

The Commission found that the company had not provided all employees with a copy of the proposed agreement, and had failed to inform employees of the outcomes of the negotiations. The company also did not adequately address the union's concerns about the proposed changes. The Commission concluded that these omissions amounted to procedural unfairness. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the company had not demonstrated that it had genuinely consulted with its employees in good faith, as required by the Fair Work Act. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed enterprise agreement did not meet the legal standards for approval and instructed the parties to return to the negotiation table to address the identified procedural issues. The Commission emphasised the importance of genuine consultation and the need for employers to provide all relevant information to employees to ensure a fair and transparent process. The decision underscored the obligations of employers under the Fair Work Act to engage in good faith negotiations and consultations with their employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established