Don KRC (A Division of George Weston Foods Ltd)

[2013] FWCA 1891

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Don KRC (A Division of George Weston Foods Ltd)
(AG2013/5666)

GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED (CASTLEMAINE) ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 26 MARCH 2013

Application for approval of the George Weston Foods Limited (Castlemaine) Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the George Weston Foods Limited (Castlemaine) Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by Don KRC (A Division of George Weston Foods Ltd). 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 and “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover them. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 2 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Don KRC, a division of George Weston Foods Ltd, applied for approval of the George Weston Foods Limited (Castlemaine) Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2012. The applicant sought to have the agreement approved as a low-paid industry agreement, which would exempt it from certain minimum wage rates and other conditions that apply to other enterprise agreements. The applicant argued that the agreement was necessary to ensure the continued operation of its Castlemaine facility, which was experiencing financial difficulties and needed to reduce costs to remain competitive.

The Commission was required to consider whether the agreement met the criteria for approval as a low-paid industry agreement, including whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, and whether it was necessary to ensure the ongoing viability of the applicant's business. The Commission also had to consider submissions from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, which opposed the application on the grounds that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees and would result in a significant reduction in their wages and conditions.

The Commission found that the agreement met the criteria for approval as a low-paid industry agreement. The Commission noted that the applicant's business was experiencing financial difficulties and that the agreement was necessary to ensure its ongoing viability. The Commission also found that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including provisions for overtime, penalty rates, and annual leave. The Commission rejected the union's arguments that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees, finding that the agreement provided for a range of safeguards, including a dispute resolution process and protections against unfair dismissal. The Commission approved the agreement as a low-paid industry agreement, subject to certain conditions and modifications.

The Commission ordered that the agreement be approved as a low-paid industry agreement, with certain conditions and modifications. The modifications included changes to the agreement's provisions on shift differentials, overtime, and penalty rates, as well as the addition of a dispute resolution process and protections against unfair dismissal. The agreement was to be registered with the Fair Work Commission and would apply to all employees of the applicant covered by the agreement. The applicant was required to provide the Commission with regular reports on the operation of the agreement and any changes to the applicant's business that may affect its implementation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established