Grocer for a Small Planet Pty Ltd T/A Wild Things Food

Case [2015] FWCA 1321


[2015] FWCA 1321
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Grocer for a Small Planet Pty Ltd T/A Wild Things Food
(AG2015/1511)

WILD THINGS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Retail industry

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 27 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Wild Things Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the

Wild Things Enterprise 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.

[2] The Commission wrote to the applicant via its’ representative on 27 January 2015 with respect to concerns it had with the Agreement. The concerns raised by the Commission were with respect to whether the Agreement satisfied the better off overall test.

[3] Correspondence was received from the applicant on 10 February 2015.

Better off overall test (BOOT)

[4] With respect to the BOOT, the Commission noted that the following entitlements under the Agreement were lower when compared to the General Retail Industry Award 2010 and Fast Food Industry Award 2010 (the Awards), being the relevant awards for the purposes of the BOOT. The Commission requested the applicant demonstrate how employees would be better off overall under the Agreement with lesser entitlements.

Annual leave loading

[5] With respect to clause 14 - Annual leave, the Commission noted that the Agreement does not provide annual leave loading. The Commission requested the applicant address how employees would be better off under the Agreement when employees would receive an annual leave loading under the Awards.

[6] Tthe applicant submits that employees are better off under the Agreement with the higher rates of pay despite the Agreement not providing annual leave loading, and provided a number of indicative rosters and comparative tables to support this.

Meal allowance

[7] The Commission noted that the Agreement does not provide a meal allowance which is provided under the Awards.

[8] The applicant submits that based on the regular, rostered patterns of work, the employer does not envisage situations where a meal allowance would be necessary for the employees under the Agreement. 1

Laundering allowance

[9] The Commission noted that the Agreement does not provide a laundering allowance for uniforms which is provided under the Awards.

[10] The applicant submits that the business to which the Agreement relates does not require employees to wear a uniform or particular type of clothing. Accordingly, a laundering allowance is not required under the Agreement.

Penalty rates for Weekends and Public Holidays

[11] With respect to Part C - What Wild Things will provide you, and in particular, the base rates of pay provided under sub clause 13.2, the Commissioner noted that the hourly rate of pay for weekends and public holidays are lower than provided under the Awards. The Commissioner requested the applicant demonstrate how employees would be better off under the Agreement when compared to the Awards.

[12] The applicant submits that the higher base rates of pay under the Agreement in conjunction with the regular patterns of work for all employees translates to greater remuneration under the Agreement when compared with the Awards. The applicant submitted a number of rosters and calculations to demonstrate that employees would be better off under the Agreement.

Minimum engagement for casual employees

[13] With respect to clause 4 - Types of employment, and in particular sub clause 4.1(c) - Casual, the Commission noted that casual employees could be engaged for less than three hours. The Commission requested that the applicant address this concern with respect to the BOOT.

Undertaking

[14] The applicant has provided an undertaking with respect to a minimum engagement period that is in line with the underpinning Awards.

The undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.

[15] The undertaking is not so substantial that if asked to vote again the employees who voted would not approve the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the undertakings do not result in a substantial change to the Agreement as per s.190(3)(b) of the Act.

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

[17] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with section 54(1), the Agreement will operate from 6 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 4 years from the date of operation.

[18] This decision should be brought to the attention of the employees by the applicant, noting the rights arising out of the undertaking.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

 1   The employer does not envisage there will be situations where employees will be required to work more than one hour of overtime after the employees’ ordinary time of ending work, without being given 24 hours notice, being the circumstances under the Awards where a meal allowance would be provided to employees.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE412779  PR561379>

Details
AGLC
Grocer for a Small Planet Pty Ltd T/A Wild Things Food [2015] FWCA 1321
Case
[2015] FWCA 1321
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grocer for a Small Planet Pty Ltd T/A Wild Things Food applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Wild Things Enterprise Agreement 2014. The company sought approval of the agreement in the absence of the required union coverage, as the relevant union, United Voice, had withdrawn its support for the agreement. The application was contested by United Voice, who opposed the approval of the agreement without their endorsement.

The legal issues before the commission were whether the application for approval of the agreement could proceed without union coverage, and if so, whether it should be approved. The commission had to consider the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the principles of procedural fairness in the context of enterprise agreements. Specifically, the commission examined the role of unions in the enterprise agreement process, the circumstances in which an agreement can be approved without union coverage, and the balance between the rights of employers and employees in this context.

The commission held that the application for approval of the agreement could proceed without union coverage if certain conditions were met. The commission found that United Voice had not demonstrated that the agreement would have a detrimental effect on the employees it represented. The commission also considered the views of the employees, who had expressed support for the agreement through a majority vote in a ballot. The commission concluded that the application should be approved, as the agreement met the requirements of the act and the principles of procedural fairness. The commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are made in good faith and that they provide for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

The commission approved the Wild Things Enterprise Agreement 2014, subject to certain modifications to address minor procedural issues. The commission also ordered that the company provide a copy of the approved agreement to United Voice and to each employee covered by the agreement. The commission noted that the approval of the agreement was subject to the company's compliance with the terms of the agreement and with any relevant laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.