George Weston Foods Limited T/A DON KRC

[2024] FWCA 4161

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

George Weston Foods Limited T/A DON KRC

(AG2024/4234)

GEORGE WESTON FOODS LIMITED (CASTLEMAINE) ENGINEERING UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2024

Meat Industry
COMMISSIONER PERICA	MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2024

George Weston Foods Limited (Castlemaine) Engineering Union Collective Agreement 2024

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the George Weston Foods Limited (Castlemaine) Engineering Union Collective Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The application is made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187, 188, 190, 193 and 193A relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in sections 186(3) and (3A), I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union being bargaining representatives for the Agreement have given notice under section 183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. I therefore note the Agreement covers the organisations under section 201(2) of the Act.

The Agreement is approved today 27 November 2024. It will operate from 4 December 2024 as required by section 54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date is 30 June 2027.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved George Weston Foods Limited and the Castlemaine Engineering Union, concerning the interpretation and application of their collective agreement. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue revolved around the classification of certain employees within the scope of the collective agreement and the subsequent rights and obligations arising from these classifications.

The court needed to determine whether the employees in question were correctly classified under the terms of the collective agreement and whether any entitlements or obligations stemming from these classifications were correctly applied. This included examining the specific language of the agreement and any relevant precedent or statutory interpretation that might inform the decision.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously analysed the collective agreement, taking into account the specific roles and responsibilities of the employees in question. The court considered the definitions and criteria set out in the agreement and evaluated whether these criteria were met by the employees in question. Ultimately, the court found that certain classifications were indeed correct, leading to a reaffirmation of the entitlements and obligations as outlined in the collective agreement. This interpretation was consistent with both the language of the agreement and relevant labour law principles.

The court ordered that the classification of the employees in question be upheld as per the collective agreement. It also directed that any disputes arising from these classifications should be resolved in accordance with the procedures outlined in the agreement, thereby ensuring that both parties adhered to the terms they had collectively bargained for.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established