DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd
(AG2017/6185)

HAZELDENES CHICKEN FARM PTY LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Poultry processing
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2018

Application for approval of the Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Engineering Services Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Engineering Services Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant 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.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 31 May 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Hazeldenes Chicken Farm Pty Ltd Engineering Services Enterprise Agreement 2017. The applicant sought to have the agreement declared as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for registration, including whether it was a genuine agreement, whether it contained the minimum entitlements, and whether it was consistent with the provisions of the Act.

The Commission found that the agreement was a genuine agreement entered into by the parties, and that it contained all the required minimum entitlements. However, the Commission noted that the agreement contained a clause that allowed for the unilateral termination of employment by the employer, which was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Commission also found that the agreement did not adequately address the issue of equal remuneration for work of equal or like value, as required by the Act.

The Commission ultimately decided that, while the agreement met most of the requirements for registration, the unilateral termination clause was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and could not be approved. The Commission also found that the agreement did not adequately address the issue of equal remuneration and therefore could not be approved. The applicant was given the opportunity to amend the agreement to address these issues before seeking approval again.

The Commission did not approve the agreement but provided guidance on the necessary amendments to be made before resubmitting for approval. The applicant was given a period of time to make the necessary amendments and resubmit the agreement for approval. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that any future agreement complied with the provisions of the Act and adequately addressed the issue of equal remuneration.

Hazeldenes 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