| [2020] FWCA 3840 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Harice Pty Ltd T/A Harry’s Ice Cream Co
(AG2020/1113)
HARICE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2020
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE | MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2020 |
Application for approval of the Harice Enterprise Agreement 2020.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Harice Enterprise Agreement 2020 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Harice Pty Ltd T/A Harry’s Ice Cream Co (Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
[2] In support of the application, the Employer filed evidence of the steps taken to explain the terms of the Agreement and its effects in accordance with s.180(5) of the Act. On 21 July 2020, a hearing was convened for the purpose of receiving further evidence and submissions in respect of the content of the explanation provided to relevant employees. Having regard to all the material before the Commission, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.180(5) have been met.
[3] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[4] In light of the above matters, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[5] I observe that clause 14.3 of the Agreement is likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). Clause 14.3 states that termination of employment by abandonment will operate as from the date of the last attendance at work, or the last day’s absence in respect of which consent was granted, or in respect of which notification was given to the Employer, whichever is the latter. However, noting clause 6 of the Agreement, I am satisfied the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.
[6] 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.
[7] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2), I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[8] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 July 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 22 July 2024.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE508564 PR721184>
Annexure A
- AGLC
- Harice Pty Ltd T/A Harry’s Ice Cream Co [2020] FWCA 3840
- Case
- [2020] FWCA 3840
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues involved verifying that the agreement complied with the statutory obligations outlined in the Fair Work Act. These included ensuring that the agreement did not unfairly disadvantage any party and that it was made in good faith. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement met the requirements for "direct" and "indirect" agreements, including the necessity of the agreement to improve the financial viability of the business and the appropriateness of the process followed to reach the agreement. The Court also needed to examine whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and not the result of coercion or undue influence.
The Fair Work Commission found that the Harice Enterprise Agreement 2020 met the necessary criteria for approval. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees and did not disadvantage any party. The agreement was deemed to be made in good faith, and the process followed to reach the agreement was considered appropriate. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and not the result of coercion or undue influence. Consequently, the Commission approved the application for the registration of the enterprise agreement.
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.