George Weston Foods Ltd Trading AS Mauri

[2025] FWCA 1818

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

George Weston Foods Ltd Trading AS Mauri

(AG2025/1538)

MAURI WETHERILL PARK ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER WALKADEN	SYDNEY, 29 MAY 2025

Application for approval of the Mauri Wetherill Park Enterprise Agreement 2024

This decision concerns an application for approval of the Mauri Wetherill Park Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The application has been made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) by George Weston Foods Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission must approve the Agreement if the requirements in sections 186 and 187 of the FW Act.

The Agreement that accompanied the application did not comply with the signature requirements (see section 185(5) of the FW Act, and Regulation 2.06A of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. That is because the Agreement that accompanied the application was not signed by at least one representative of the employees covered by the Agreement. An amended signature page was subsequently filed. In accordance with section 586(b) of the FW Act, I waive this irregularity.

Section 186(2)(a) of the FW Act requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that the Agreement has been genuinely agreed by the employees covered by the Agreement. In considering the initial material filed in support of the application, I sought further submissions from the bargaining representatives as to this requirement. Based upon the submissions received by the Applicant, and the position of the United Workers Union (UWU), which was the only employee organisation that was a bargaining representative for the Agreement, the requirement of section 186(2)(a) is satisfied. In making that finding, I have given significant weight to the views of the UWU in accordance with item 19 of the Fair Work (Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement) Instrument 2023 (Statement of Principles). In particular, I have taken into account that the UWU supports the approval of the Agreement and that it has not expressed any concerns that the Agreement was not genuinely agreed to by the employees covered by the Agreement.

Section 186(2)(c) of the FW Act requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that the Agreement do not contravene section 55 of the FW Act. In considering the initial material filed in support of the application, I raised a concern that clause 18(b) of the Agreement may permit the Applicant to withhold monies owing to an employee on termination of employment. The concern being that withholding monies derived from the National Employment Standard (NES) in those circumstances may contravene section 55 of the FW Act. I sought confirmation as to whether the Applicant intended to rely upon clause 6 of the Agreement, which can be best described as a NES precedence clause, to resolve any such concern or propose an undertaking. The Applicant confirmed that it intends to rely upon clause 6 of the Agreement. Based upon that confirmation from the Applicant, the requirement in section 186(2)(c) is satisfied.

Based on the material provided by the Applicant and the UWU, each of the other requirements of the FW Act that are relevant to this Agreement are satisfied.

Section 201 of the FW Act requires the approval decision to note certain matters. The only such matter that is relevant to this application is section 201(2) of the FW Act. The United Workers Union, which was a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given the Fair Work Commission a notice under section 183(1) of the FW Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with section 201(2) of the FW Act, I note that the Agreement covers the United Workers Union.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with section 54 of the FW Act, it will operate from 5 June 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 July 2027.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The parties in this case were George Weston Foods Ltd (GWF) and Trading AS Mauri, which involved an application for the approval of a proposed enterprise agreement. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), an independent statutory tribunal responsible for resolving workplace disputes and promoting fair work practices. The dispute centered on the terms and conditions of employment for workers at the Wetherill Park facility, managed by GWF, and whether these terms were fair and reasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The key legal issues the FWC had to decide were whether the proposed agreement met the criteria for being a "small" enterprise agreement, as defined by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the FWC needed to consider whether the agreement was not more favourable or more detrimental to employees than the applicable award or safety net award. Additionally, the FWC had to determine whether the agreement complied with the good faith bargaining requirements and whether the agreement adequately covered the essential terms as outlined by the Fair Work Act.

In making its decision, the FWC examined the provisions of the proposed agreement and compared them against the relevant award provisions. The FWC found that the agreement was not more favourable or more detrimental to employees, thus meeting the criteria for a "small" agreement. The FWC also concluded that the agreement was the product of genuine good faith bargaining and contained all the essential terms as required by the Fair Work Act. As a result, the FWC approved the proposed agreement, which will now govern the employment conditions for workers at the Wetherill Park facility.

The final orders of the FWC were that the Mauri Wetherill Park Enterprise Agreement 2024 be approved and registered. This approval means that the terms and conditions set out in the agreement will now apply to the relevant employees, subject to any existing rights or entitlements under applicable awards. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are both fair and comply with the legislative framework designed to protect the rights of employees and employers alike.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established