G. H. Varley Pty Ltd trading as Varley Group

[2025] FWCA 1023

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

G. H. Varley Pty Ltd trading as Varley Group

(AG2025/507)

GH VARLEY PTY LTD TOMAGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 25 MARCH 2025

Application for approval of the GH VARLEY PTY LTD TOMAGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the GH VARLEY PTY LTD TOMAGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by G. H. Varley Pty Ltd trading as Varley Group (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The material filed in support of the application disclosed a discrepancy between the persons proposed to be covered as referred to in the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) which was issued to employees and those now covered by the proposed agreement. The latter excludes from coverage employees who are employed and paid as fortnightly or monthly staff. The Applicant submitted that the exclusion was an ‘update’ to the previous agreement which made reference to the exclusion of staff employed on a monthly basis. The NERR that was issued provided notice of employee representational rights in respect of a proposed agreement that covered a larger group of employees than ultimately came to be covered by the Agreement. The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing, and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) was involved in the negotiations as a bargaining representative and did not take issue with the discrepancy. The parties have had previous involvement in the bargaining process. The discrepancy is in my view a minor technical error which, in accordance with s.188(5) of the Act, I am able to disregard where I am satisfied that employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error. I am satisfied that this is the case here and will disregard the error.

The Applicant has provided written undertakings (Annexure A). In accordance with s.190(4) of the Act the views of the bargaining representatives for the agreement were sought in relation to the undertakings. The bargaining representatives have indicated their acceptance of the undertakings provided. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

Having regard to the supporting material and the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as is relevant to this application for approval has been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

I note that Clause 3 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement will be read and interpreted in conjunction with the National Employment Standards (NES). If there is any inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES, the more beneficial provision to an employee prevails. Where the Agreement includes terms that have the same effect as terms of the NES or Award, or terms that are ancillary or supplementary to the NES or Award, the Agreement terms shall operate subject to the same qualifications, limitations and exclusions as the relevant NES entitlement unless otherwise specified.

The AMWU lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration giving notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the AMWU.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

The case involved G. H. Varley Pty Ltd, trading as Varley Group, which sought approval of the GH VARLEY PTY LTD TOMAGO ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was genuinely bargained between the parties, whether it provided for the mandatory minimum entitlements under the National Employment Standards, and whether it complied with the good faith bargaining requirements. The applicant argued that the agreement was fairly negotiated and met all legislative requirements. The Commission needed to assess these contentions against the relevant provisions of the Act and applicable precedents.

The Commission found that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the parties, and that it provided for the minimum entitlements as required by the Act. The Commission also determined that the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining provisions, and was therefore suitable for approval. The decision was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the agreement had been negotiated in a manner consistent with the principles of good faith and genuine bargaining. The Commission approved the agreement, allowing it to be registered and enforceable.

The Commission's decision concluded that the agreement met all the necessary criteria for approval, and directed that it be registered with the Commission. This ruling ensures that the agreement will be recognised as a legally binding instrument between the parties, providing a framework for the terms and conditions of employment within the Varley Group.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established