Christian Chance Pty Ltd

Case [2015] FWCA 5653


[2015] FWCA 5653
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Christian Chance Pty Ltd
(AG2015/3496)

CHRISTIAN CHANCE PTY LTD - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Restaurants

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 20 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the Christian Chance Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Christian Chance Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Christian Chance Pty Ltd – Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement is to cover 15 employees who are employed at the applicant’s franchise cafe, commonly known as Dome Coffee, in Cannington, Western Australia.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 21 March 2015, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 10 July 2015. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, all 12 of the employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 3 August 2015. While I note that this falls outside the statutory time limit set out in s 185(3)(a) of the Act, I note that the employees are already being paid in accordance with the Agreement. I consider it fair in all the circumstances to extend the date for lodgement to 3 August 2015 (s 185(3)(b)).

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms L Chan, Director, identified the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 [MA000119] as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Chansaid that the Agreement does provide for some terms and conditions that are less beneficial than those under the reference instruments, in that the Agreement does not provide for penalty rates for work performed on weekends, public holidays and removes a number of allowances. However, these have been ‘loaded’ into higher base rates of pay. On balance, I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 7.1 and 7.4 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 2.4 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 13 August 2015, Mr C Agnew, Solicitorappeared with Mr C Chan and Ms L Chan for the applicant. Mr Agnew outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. Mr Agnew explained that the cafe was located in a shopping centre and operated predominantly in daylight hours, with the exception of Thursday night. He said that the applicant had performed calculations based on indicative rosters which indicated that the employees were better off overall, even in the absence of penalty rates for work performed on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. He provided a comparative document setting out these calculations. Mr Agnew also offered to provide an undertaking to the effect that rates of pay are to be adjusted in accordance with the Commission’s Minimum Wage Review decisions and that the applicant would pass on to employees the increase of 2.5% from 1 July 2015. Pursuant to s 191(1) of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of this undertaking is attached to the Agreement and marked as ‘Annexure A’.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191 and 193 in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Christian Chance Pty Ltd – Enterprise Agreement 2014.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 20 August 2015 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 September 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE415296  PR570892>

Details
AGLC
Christian Chance Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 5653
Case
[2015] FWCA 5653
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christian Chance Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Christian Chance Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2014. The respondents, including the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement contained terms that were not consistent with the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue before the Commission was whether certain terms of the agreement, specifically those related to the classification of employees and the payment of allowances, were consistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission examined the arguments presented by both parties and considered the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that while the majority of the agreement was consistent with the Act, the specific terms regarding employee classification and allowances did not comply with certain sections of the legislation. The Commission determined that these terms were not authorised by the Act and therefore could not be approved. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

The Commission's decision was based on a careful analysis of the legislative framework and the specific provisions of the agreement. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with the Fair Work Act to maintain a fair and balanced industrial relations system. The Commission's decision highlighted the need for parties to carefully consider the legal implications of the terms they include in an enterprise agreement.

No further orders were made by the Commission. The decision stands as a reminder of the importance of legal compliance in the drafting and negotiation of enterprise agreements.

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.