Goldmedal Corporation Pty Ltd ATF Lynwood Unit Trust T/A Lynwood Supa IGA

[2014] FWCA 3369

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Goldmedal Corporation Pty Ltd ATF Lynwood Unit Trust T/A Lynwood Supa IGA
(AG2014/5929)

THE LYNWOOD SUPA IGA AGREEMENT 2014

Retail industry
COMMISSIONER BULL	SYDNEY, 21 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the The Lynwood Supa IGA Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Lynwood Supa IGA Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

Undertakings

Rates of pay

[2] Upon review of the Agreement, the Commission wrote to the Applicant via its representative with respect to clause 20 - Wages, and in particular, sub clause 20(5) of the Agreement. The Commission notes that the Junior rates for employees under 16 years of age under the Agreement is 40% of the appropriate adult rate. The General Retail Industry Award 2010 (the Award), being the relevant modern award for the purpose of the better off overall test, provides that employees under 16 years of age will receive 45% of the adult rate of pay.

[3] Calculations undertaken by the Commission demonstrated that employees under 16 years of age would not be better off under the Agreement given the lower percentage.

[4] The Applicant has provided an undertaking to increase the percentage under the Agreement with respect to employees under 16 years of age from 40% to 45%.

[5] Upon review of the undertaking provided by the Applicant, I am satisfied that employees covered by this Agreement are better off overall.

[6] This undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.

[7] I have sought the views of the bargaining representatives, in respect of the undertakings, pursuant to s.190(4) of the Act. The bargaining representatives have not advised of any concerns with the undertakings provided.

[8] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[9] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) the Agreement will operate from 28 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of operation.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Goldmedal Corporation Pty Ltd, acting through the Lynwood Unit Trust, trading as Lynwood Supa IGA, applied for approval of the Lynwood Supa IGA Agreement 2014. This agreement was between the applicant and its employees, who were members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). The primary dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically regarding the approval of an enterprise agreement that the applicant claimed was not in the best interests of the employees.

The legal issues before the court included whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, whether it complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act, and whether there was procedural fairness in the way the agreement was negotiated and executed. Additionally, the court had to consider the fairness of the agreement's terms and its compliance with the provisions of the Act.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the negotiation process, the terms of the agreement, and the impact of the agreement on the employees. Ultimately, the court found that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees, primarily due to issues with the calculation of penalty rates and the impact on employee entitlements. The court also found procedural issues in the negotiation process, leading to the conclusion that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed, and the agreement was not approved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established