Domaine Chandon Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1782

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Domaine Chandon Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5585)

DOMAINE CHANDON AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013

Wine industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 22 MARCH 2013

Domaine Chandon Australia Operations Employees Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Domaine Chandon Australia Operations Employees Collective Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Domaine Chandon Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 January 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Domaine Chandon Australia Pty Ltd involves the employer and its employees who are represented by the National Tertiary Education Union. The dispute pertains to the interpretation and application of the Domaine Chandon Australia Operations Employees Collective Agreement 2013, specifically regarding the classification and remuneration of employees within the organisation. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's national workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issues before the court were the proper interpretation of the collective agreement and the classification of certain employees under the agreement. The employer argued that certain employees should be classified under a lower-paid grade, while the union contended that these employees should be classified under a higher-paid grade. The court had to determine the correct classification of these employees and the applicable pay rates based on the terms of the collective agreement.

In its decision, the court carefully analysed the language of the collective agreement, considering the broader context and the intentions of the parties. The court found that the employees in question should indeed be classified under the higher-paid grade, as the language of the agreement, when read as a whole, supported this interpretation. The court also considered relevant precedent and statutory provisions in reaching its conclusion. As a result, the employees were entitled to the higher pay rates specified in the collective agreement.

The court ordered that the employer adjust the affected employees' remuneration to reflect the correct classification, with back pay to be calculated and paid in accordance with the decision. The employer was also directed to implement any necessary changes to ensure compliance with the agreement moving forward. The union was ordered to co-operate with the employer in this process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established