Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 3981

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/6268)

COCA-COLA AMATIL (AUST) PTY. LTD NSW SUPPLY CHAIN OPERATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NORTHMEAD/SMITHFIED 2014 - 2017

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 16 JUNE 2014

Application for approval of the COCA-COLA AMATIL (AUST) PTY. LTD NSW SUPPLY CHAIN OPERATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NORTHMEAD/SMITHFIELD 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the COCA-COLA AMATIL (AUST) PTY. LTD NSW SUPPLY CHAIN OPERATIONS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NORTHMEAD/SMITHFIELD 2014-2017 (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 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 1 August 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 August 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought approval from the Fair Work Commission for the Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd NSW Supply Chain Operations Enterprise Agreement Northmead/Smithfield 2014-2017. The application was opposed by the Independent Transport Workers Union and the National Union of Workers. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed enterprise agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was in the public interest, provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and was free from any elements that would cause detriment to employees or employers.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the provisions of the agreement, the balance of rights and obligations, and the impact on the employees and the employer. The applicant argued that the agreement was necessary for the efficient operation of the business and would provide employees with fair compensation and working conditions. The unions, on the other hand, contended that the agreement would result in a reduction of job security and wages. After careful consideration, the court found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval, as it contained provisions that would cause detriment to employees by reducing their entitlements and job security. Consequently, the court rejected the application for approval of the enterprise agreement.

The court ordered that the proposed enterprise agreement be disallowed, ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment for the employees in question would remain governed by the applicable awards and regulations until a new agreement is negotiated and approved. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any proposed enterprise agreement aligns with the principles of fairness and the public interest, as set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established