DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd T/A Kraft Heinz Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2020/870)

H.J. HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LTD ECHUCA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 9 APRIL 2020

H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd Echuca Enterprise Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd Echuca Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd T/A Kraft Heinz Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 April 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd, trading as Kraft Heinz Australia Pty Ltd, and the relevant unions. The dispute centred around the Echuca Enterprise Agreement 2019. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The unions sought an interpretation of certain clauses in the agreement, specifically those related to shift patterns and rostering, and argued that the company had breached the agreement by failing to follow the correct rostering procedures. Heinz, on the other hand, contended that the clauses were ambiguous and that they had acted in accordance with the spirit of the agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the clauses in question were ambiguous and, if so, how they should be interpreted. The unions argued that the clauses were clear and unambiguous, and that the company had failed to adhere to the agreed procedures. Heinz contended that the clauses were ambiguous and that their actions were in line with the intended purpose of the agreement. The Commission had to determine the correct interpretation of the clauses and whether there had been a breach of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the clauses in question were ambiguous and required interpretation. The Commission examined the context in which the clauses were written, the bargaining history, and the overall purpose of the agreement. After careful consideration, the Commission concluded that the clauses should be interpreted in a manner that promoted flexibility in rostering while also protecting the rights of the employees. The Commission found that Heinz had breached the agreement by not following the correct procedures, leading to rostering issues that disadvantaged the employees. The Commission ordered Heinz to take specific steps to rectify the situation and to ensure compliance with the agreement in the future.

H.J. Heinz Company Australia Ltd T/A Kraft Heinz Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established