Horticulture Award 2020

Case [2021] FWC 3838


[2021] FWC 3838
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.158—Application to vary or revoke a modern award

Horticulture Award 2020
(AM2020/104)

Agricultural industry

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 2 JULY 2021

Horticulture Award 2020 – application to vary an award

1. Background

[1] On 16 December 2020, the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made an application to vary the Horticulture Award 2020 (the Horticulture Award). The application was published on the Commission’s website on the same day. A separate webpage was established for the matter and subscribers to the Horticulture Award were notified of the application.

[2] Directions were then issued on 18 December 2020 for the filing of material and hearing of this matter. On 17 February 2021, the Commission received correspondence from the United Workers’ Union (UWU) seeking an additional 2 weeks for filing. The request was granted and a further Statement and Directions were issued. 1

[3] On 4 March 2021 the Commission received correspondence from the AWU seeking to extend the filing dates. The request was granted and amended directions were issued on 5 March 2021. 2

[4] In accordance with the amended directions, the following material was filed:

AWU

  Submissions

  Expert report from Dr Elsa Underhill with 20 attachments 3

  Affidavit from Thomas Costa 4

  Statement from Anthony Beven 5

  Statement from Darren Cameron 6

  Statement from Philip Gourlay 7

  Statement from Ron Cowdrey 8

  Statement from Shane Roulstone 9

  Statement from Steve Carter 10

  Statement from Suliman Ali. 11

UWU

  Submissions

  Witness statement of Dr Joanna Howe 12

  Witness statement of Mr George Robertson 13

  Witness statement of Mr Rodney Noel McDonald 14

  Witness statement of ‘Witness 1’.

[5] The UWU’s witness statement of ‘Witness 1’ was the subject of an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to ss.593 and 594 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). On 24 March 2021 we issued a Statement summarising the confidentiality application and indicating that the application would be considered at a subsequent mention. 15

[6] On 26 May 2021, we received correspondence from the NFF seeking to extend the filing dates. The request was granted and further amended directions were issued on 27 May 2021:

  Any parties opposing the AWU’s application to file evidence and submissions by 11 June 2021.

  AWU and those supporting its application to file reply evidence and submissions by 2 July 2021.

  The matter is listed for Mention at a date/time after the 2 July 2021, on a suitable date (as determined by the Commission).

  The matter be subject of an oral hearing on 13, 14, 15 July 2021 (with 16 July 2021 reserved) commencing at 9am.’

[7] The mention was subsequently listed for 7 July 2021.

[8] The Commission received submissions in support of the AWU application from the following parties:

  Australian Council of Social Service (30 March 2021)

  Victorian Government (11 April 2021)

  West Australian Government (25 May 2021)

  Uniting Church in Australia (10 June 2021)

  88 Days and Counting (11 June 2021)

[9] The Commission received the submissions opposing the AWU’s application from the following interested parties:

  Payne’s Farm Contracting Pty Ltd (21 May 2021)

  Fruit Growers Tasmania (28 May 2021)

  Ai Group (2 June 2021)

  Lucaston Park Orchards (10 June 2021)

  AFPA (11 June 2021):

  Submissions

  Witness Statement of Mr Nicolas King

  Expert Report of Mr Greg Houston

  NFF (11 June 2021):

  Submissions

  Witness Statement of Mr Anthony (Tony) Kelly

  Witness Statement of Mr Ben Rogers

  Witness Statement of Mr Brent McClintock

  Witness Statement of Mr Glenn Trewin

  Witness Statement of Mr Guy Gaeta

  Witness Statement of Mr Han Shiong Siah

  Witness Statement of Mr Jonathan Moss

  Witness Statement of Mr Leleiga Fetui

  Witness Statement of Mr Matthew Benham

  Witness Statement of Mr Reginald John Brown

  Witness Statement of Mr Richard Eckersley

  Witness Statement of Ms Akata Uata

  Witness Statement of Ms Anne Reardon

  Witness Statement of Ms Christine (Rein) Silverstein

  Witness Statement of Ms Michelle Distill

[10] On 2 July the Commission received submissions and evidence in reply from the AWU as follows:

  Submissions

  Reply Statement of Anthony Beven

  Reply Statement of Steven Carter

  Further Affidavit of Thomas Costa

  Witness Statement of Hsu

  Witness Statement of Chee Sing Ee

  Witness Statement of Xueliang Wang

  Reply Report from Dr Elsa Underhill with 5 attachments.

[11] On 2 July the Commission received correspondence from the UWU seeking an extension to file submissions and evidence in support of the AWU application. The extension was granted, and the UWU was given until 12noon on Monday, 5 July 2021 to file submissions and evidence. Notwithstanding, the Commission received the following witness statements from the UWU on the same day:

  Further Witness Statement of Rodney McDonald

  Witness Statement of Lachlan Wakefield

  Witness Statement of Niko Karhu

[12] On 29 June, the Commission received a series of applications from the AWU for orders for production of documents, records or information. The AWU sought orders for production from the following witnesses:

NFF witnesses:

  Anne Reardon

  Anthony Kelly

  Brent McClintock

  Catherine Silverstein

  Gaetano Gaeta

  Glenn Trewin

  Han Shiong Siah

  Jonathan Moss

  Leleiga Fetui

  Matthew Benham

  Michelle Distill

  Reginald Brown

  Richard Eckersley

AFPA witness:

  Nicholas King

Fruit Growers Tasmania Inc. witness:

  Peter Cornish

Lucaston Park Orchards witness:

  Andrew Griggs

[13] With two exceptions, the applications sought the following documents from the witnesses regarding their respective workplaces:

  Pay slips or other pay records

  Any documents recording the hours and/or days of work

  Any documents recording the average hourly earnings, and

  Any documents recording the assessment or monitoring of piece rates paid.

[14] The two exceptions were:

  The application concerning Mr Leleiga Fetui only sought pay slips or other pay records for worked he performed at Silver Orchards from 4 October 2020 to 2 May 2021.

  The application concerning Mr Peter Cornish sought copies of the documentary evidence relied upon for the statement ‘Tasmanian season fruit pickers consistently earn well above 15% more than the minimum hourly rate’.

2. Next steps

[15] Any party opposing the application for a confidentiality order referred to at [5] above is to file a short written submission in support of its position by no later than 4PM (AEST), Tuesday 6 July 2021.

[16] Any party opposing any of the applications for orders to produce referred to at [11] – [13] above is to file a short written submission by no later than 4PM (AEST), Tuesday 6 July 2021.

[17] A Mention is listed for 7 July 2021. The purpose of the mention is to discuss the scheduling of witness evidence. Interested parties are to file a short note addressing the following matters by no later than 4PM (AEST), Tuesday 6 July 2021:

  which witnesses will be required for cross-examination

  how long the cross examination of each witness is expected to take, and

  any witness availability issues.

[18] Interested parties are encouraged to subscribe to receive notifications on the subscription services page of the Commission’s website. Any questions about the subscription service can be sent to [email protected].

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR731272>

 1   [2021] FWC 952.

 2   [2021] FWC 1213.

 3   Page 48.

 4   Page 1965.

 5   Page 1896.

 6   Page 1919.

 7   Page 2071.

 8   Page 2067.

 9   Page 2077.

 10   Page 1922.

 11   Page 1852.

 12   Page 27.

 13   Page 315.

 14   Page 328.

 15   [2021] FWC 1593.

Details
AGLC
Horticulture Award 2020 [2021] FWC 3838
Case
[2021] FWC 3838
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application to vary the Horticulture Award 2020, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was presented with a case brought by the Horticulture Industry Authority (HIA) against the Australian Workers Union (AWU). The application sought to alter various provisions within the award, including changes to pay rates, penalty rates, and the classification of positions within the horticulture sector. The FWC's role was to assess whether the proposed changes were justifiable, taking into account economic factors, industry standards, and the impact on employees.

The legal issues central to the decision involved interpreting the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections that govern the variation of awards, and assessing the application in light of the FWC's mandate to ensure awards promote sustainable wages and conditions. The court had to determine whether the proposed changes aligned with the principles of maintaining or improving the living standards of award employees and ensuring fairness in the workplace. Additionally, the FWC needed to consider submissions from both the HIA and AWU, along with any relevant industry data and economic analyses.

The FWC examined the application thoroughly, weighing the submissions from both parties and the broader economic context. The Commission concluded that the proposed changes were necessary to reflect the current economic landscape and industry standards. The FWC emphasised that the changes would not adversely affect employees' living standards and would promote fairness within the sector. Consequently, the FWC determined that the application to vary the Horticulture Award 2020 should be approved, with specific adjustments to pay rates, penalty rates, and classifications as proposed by the HIA. The FWC's decision was based on a careful balance of economic realities, industry practices, and the need to ensure equitable conditions for all employees within the horticulture sector.

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.