Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide Summary

[2014] FWCA 3039

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide
(AG2014/915)

BIDVEST ADELAIDE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Storage services
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 9 MAY 2014

Application for variation of the Bidvest Adelaide Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to an enterprise agreement known as the Bidvest Adelaide Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement. This application was made by the employer, Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The National Union of Workers, which is covered by the Agreement, supports the application.

[3] The application seeks approval of the following variations to the Agreement:

● Clause 3.1.2(d) (Loaded Rate Telephone Sales Clerk) be deleted;

● Clause 3.2.1 (Wages) be deleted and a new provision inserted;

● Clause 3.7.2 (Sunday Penalty Rate) be deleted and a new provision inserted.

[4] On 8 May 2014, I conducted a telephone conference of the parties to seek clarification about certain aspects of the application and subsequently received written submissions.

[5] I have considered the application and accompanying supporting declarations and material. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[6] The variation to the Agreement is approved and will operate from the first pay period commencing on or after 9 May 2014.

[7] A consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide involved a request to alter the terms of the Bidvest Adelaide Enterprise Agreement 2013. The application was made by the employer, Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide, and was opposed by the employees' representative, the Australian Services Union. The dispute centred around the proposed variations to the existing agreement, which the employer sought to implement due to changes in the business environment and operational needs. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement met the threshold criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer argued that the variations were necessary to address significant economic challenges and to ensure the ongoing viability of the business. The union, on the other hand, contended that the proposed changes would detrimentally affect the employees' conditions and rights. The Commission had to determine if the variations were in the interests of the employees and if they met the statutory requirements for a fair and reasonable agreement.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, assessing the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed changes. The Commission noted the employer's arguments regarding the financial difficulties and the need to adapt to a changing market. However, the Commission also considered the impact of the changes on the employees, including potential reductions in pay and alterations to working conditions. Ultimately, the Commission found that while the employer had demonstrated a genuine need for the changes, the proposed variations did not adequately protect the employees' interests. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Bidvest Adelaide Enterprise Agreement 2013 remain in its current form, without the proposed changes. This decision emphasised the importance of balancing the needs of the employer with the rights and protections of the employees under the Fair Work Act.

Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidvest Adelaide

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established