Fair Work Ombudsman v Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Limited

The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Limited concerning alleged contraventions of the *Workplace Relations Act 1996* (Cth) in relation to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). The dispute centred on whether the respondent provided an employee, Mr Morrow, with an AWA and associated documents in a timely manner and whether duress was applied in connection with the signing of the AWA. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Raphael.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the respondent provided Mr Morrow with an AWA and the required Information Statement at least fourteen days prior to its signing, as stipulated by the legislation. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the respondent's conduct amounted to duress, rendering the AWA invalid under section 170WG of the *Workplace Relations Act 1996*. This involved assessing whether the respondent applied duress to the employee in connection with the AWA and whether any false or misleading statements were made with the intention of persuading the employee to make the AWA.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the provision of documents and the circumstances surrounding the signing of the AWA. Judge Raphael noted that the respondent was required to make accurate declarations and that a person must not apply duress or make a false statement in connection with an AWA. Mr Morrow's affidavit indicated that he did not recall receiving the AWA, cover letter, or Information Statement until March 2006, despite the AWA being dated December 2005. While a respondent's witness claimed to have distributed packs containing these documents in December 2005 and that it was their practice to advise employees to hold the documents for fourteen days before signing, this witness could not definitively recall providing the pack to Mr Morrow or stating those instructions to him. The court considered the evidence in light of the statutory requirements for the provision of documents and the prohibition against duress.