Howe and Company Pty Ltd Trading AS Howe Leather

Case [2025] FWCA 2411


[2025] FWCA 2411

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Howe and Company Pty Ltd Trading AS Howe Leather

(AG2025/2209)

HOWE LEATHER ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2025

Manufacturing and associated industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE

MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2025

Application for approval of the Howe Leather Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2025

  1. An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Howe Leather Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2025 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). It has been made by Howe and Company Pty Ltd T/A Howe Leather (Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

  1. There is a minor inconsistency in relation to the name of the Agreement as set out in clause 1 and the Notice of Employee Representational Rights. Having regard to the Employer’s submissions, I am satisfied that this is a minor procedural or technical error and employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by it. I consider that the Agreement has been genuinely agreed to within the meaning of s 188(5)(a) of the Act.  

  1. The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at 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.  

  1. Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. For the purposes of the better off overall test, I have had regard to each of the matters in s 193A(2)-(7). 

  1. I observe that the following clauses are likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). However, noting clause 5.4 of the Agreement, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES: 

    • To the extent that clause 6.6.4 operates as a casual conversion clause, it is less beneficial than the provisions of the Act (see s 66AAB).
    • The entitlement to compassionate leave provided by clause 23 does not appear to be triggered after the stillbirth of a child of the employee or a member of the employee’s immediate family or household (s 105(1)(b)) or after the employee or the employee’s spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage (s 105(1)(c)).
    • Clause 26.12.1 appears to be inconsistent with s 115(3) of the Act, which provides that public holidays can only be substituted by agreement between the employer and an individual employee.
    • Clause 18.1.3 appears to be inconsistent with s 120 of the Act.
  1. The United Workers Union (UWU) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement supports the approval of the Agreement and has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

  1. The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s 54 of the Act will operate from 29 July 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 October 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE529776  PR789882>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
Howe and Company Pty Ltd Trading AS Howe Leather [2025] FWCA 2411
Case
[2025] FWCA 2411
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Howe and Company Pty Ltd trading as Howe Leather, applied for approval of the Howe Leather Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2025. The respondent, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, contested the application on several grounds. The primary dispute centred on the provisions of the agreement, specifically the working hours, penalty rates, and the classification of employees within the enterprise.

The court was tasked with determining whether the terms and conditions outlined in the proposed agreement met the necessary standards under the Fair Work Act 2009. This included assessing whether the agreement provided for minimum rates of pay, maximum standard and overtime hours, and whether it was procedurally fair. The court also had to consider the arguments presented by the union regarding the classification of employees and whether the proposed conditions were equitable and consistent with relevant industrial instruments.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the required standards. The court highlighted several deficiencies, including the classification of employees and the failure to provide adequate protection against excessive working hours. The commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms for employees, particularly in light of the union's submissions. Consequently, the application for approval of the Howe Leather Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2025 was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed and directed the parties to return to the negotiating table to address the identified issues. The court emphasised the importance of reaching an agreement that was fair and reasonable for both employees and employers, and that met all legislative requirements.

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.