DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.248—Single interest employer authorisation

BP Bakery Pty Ltd and others
(B2014/1649)

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 18 DECEMBER 2014

Regarding proposed enterprise agreement - Bakers Delight Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] BP Bakery Pty Ltd and others have made application for a Single Interest Employer Authorisation under section 248 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) in relation to the proposed Enterprise Agreement to be known as the Bakers Delight Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[2] The application specifies the Employers that will be covered by the proposed Agreement, the group of employees who would be covered by the Agreement, and the person nominated by the Employers to make application if the authorisation is made. That person is Ms Rachel Leshinsky the Human Resources Manager of Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd.

[3] Ms Leshinsky has also provided a Statutory Declaration in support of the application.

[4] Having considered the terms of the application and the attached Statutory Declaration I am satisfied the Employers intended to be covered by the proposed Agreement have agreed to bargain together, and that no person has coerced or threaten to coerce any of those Employers to agree to bargain in this way.

[5] I am also satisfied the Employers are carrying on similar business activities under the same franchise and are all franchisees of the same franchisor.

[6] The Act provides that I must, in such circumstances, make a Single Interest Employer Authorisation in relation to the proposed Enterprise Agreement. I accordingly make the authorisation in relation to the proposed Bakers Delight Enterprise Agreement 2014. It will come into operation from the date of this decision. An order containing the authorisation is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BP Bakery Pty Ltd and others brought proceedings against Bakers Delight alleging that the enterprise agreement proposed by Bakers Delight was not a genuine enterprise agreement, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on whether the agreement was genuinely made for the purpose of establishing the terms and conditions of employment. The Fair Work Commission heard the case.

The primary issue before the Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement was a genuine agreement between the employer and the employees, as required by the Fair Work Act. This involved determining whether the agreement had been negotiated in good faith, whether it represented the employees' interests, and whether it was made for the purpose of establishing the terms and conditions of employment. Another issue was whether the employer had provided sufficient information to enable the employees to make an informed decision regarding the agreement.

The Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement was not a genuine agreement. The employer had failed to provide employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision and had not negotiated in good faith. The employer had also not taken into account the employees' interests. The Commission found that the employer had not made the agreement for the purpose of establishing the terms and conditions of employment, and therefore the agreement was invalid. The Commission ordered that the proposed enterprise agreement be set aside and that the previous enterprise agreement remain in force until a new agreement was made.

The Commission further ordered that the employer provide a range of information to the employees, including details of the proposed changes to the agreement, and that the employer negotiate in good faith with the employees to reach a new agreement. The Commission also ordered that the employer pay the costs of the proceedings.

BP Bakery Pty Ltd and others

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established