DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1581)

HAZELDENE’S CHICKEN FARM PTY LTD HATCHERY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Agricultural industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 27 JULY 2016

Application for approval of the Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 27 July 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 3 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd, the employer, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Hatchery Enterprise Agreement 2016. The employees, represented by a union, sought to have certain clauses in the agreement invalidated. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement provided for the mandatory minimum entitlements and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The union argued that certain provisions in the agreement, particularly those relating to overtime and penalty rates, did not comply with the statutory requirements and were made without proper negotiation. The employer contended that the agreement was a genuine outcome of bargaining and met all legal standards.

The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address the issue of overtime pay, as it did not specify the applicable penalty rates for such work. The Commission also found that the employer had not properly addressed the union's concerns about the terms of the agreement, and that the employer had not demonstrated that the agreement was made in good faith. Consequently, the Commission declined to approve the agreement. The employer was ordered to renegotiate the agreement with the union to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Commission ordered that the application for approval of the agreement be dismissed and that the employer must renegotiate the agreement with the union. The new agreement must address the issues of overtime pay and ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act. The union and employer were directed to meet and confer in good faith to achieve this outcome.

Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm 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