Inghams Enterprise Pty Limited

[2013] FWCA 1562

[2013] FWCA 1562

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Inghams Enterprise Pty Limited
(AG2012/13104)

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES (SOUTH AUSTRALIA PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Poultry processing
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON	SYDNEY, 14 MARCH 2013

Approval of the Inghams Enterprises (South Australia Processing and Distribution) Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the lnghams Enterprises (South Australia Processing and Distribution) Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited (Inghams).

[2] The Agreement will apply to employees involved in the processing and distribution of poultry and poultry products at the following sites:

● Bolivar Processing Plant, Burton Road, Burton, South Australia;
● Protein Conversion Plant, Cormack Road, Wingfield, South Australia; and
● South Australian Distribution Centre, Bradford Way, Dry Creek, South Australia.

[3] An objection was received from an employee who will be covered by the Agreement on behalf of a group of employees working at the Protein Conversion Plant (PCP). The employee identified a number of issues which he states arise as a result of employees at the PCP being out voted by employees at the Bolivar Processing Plant (Bolivar).

[4] The issues included concerns in relation to the following:

● Clause 2.3 - Productivity improvements - concern was expressed over the removal of scheduled toilet breaks with employees expected to utilise meal and rest breaks;
● Clause 3.1 - Dispute settlement procedures - concern was expressed in relation to the FWC being able to attempt to resolve a dispute through expressing an opinion or making a recommendation. The employee expressed concern that Inghams would not be required to act on an opinion or recommendation.
● A further concern expressed in respect of clause 3.1 was that the clause, at 3.1.2(b), provides for the ability of the parties to refer the matter to the FWC for arbitration by consent. A concern was expressed that Inghams would not consent to arbitration.
● Clause 3.2 - Introduction of change - an issue was raised in respect of removal of a provision from a previous industrial instrument that provided for a review of classification in the event of a role change due to introduction of new equipment.
● Clause 4.5 - Redundancy - concern was expressed over a change to the clause from the previous industrial instrument.
● Clause 5.1 - Wages and related matters - a concern was expressed over the date of the first pay increase under the Agreement, it is contended that the increase should apply from 1 October 2013, rather than 1 January 2014.
● In respect of the wage increase a concern is expressed that by applying a dollar amount increase, the proportion of the increase for PCP employees is less than for other employees.
● Clause 5.3 - Classification definitions - issue is taken with the words “any other duties as described” for PCP employees.
● Clause 6.1 - Rest period after overtime - a concern was noted in relation to the reduction from ten to eight hours break between shifts for shift workers working overtime.
● Clause 6.6 - Meal breaks - a concern was expressed that employees working at the PCP would be required to work during meal breaks as machinery will still run during breaks.
● Clause 7.7 Public holidays - issue is taken with the fact that PCP employees are required to work public holidays where employees at other sites are not.

[5] Inghams submit that the issues raised express displeasure at the outcome of the negotiations. It submits that the issues that were identified were accepted by a majority of employees. It submits that the requirements of the Act have been met and the Agreement should be approved.

[6] I have no doubt that the employee who corresponded with the Commission does not agree with the Agreement and has firmly held views as to its perceived deficiencies. However the concerns that he has expressed do not establish that there has not been compliance with any provisions of the Act. It is clear in my view that a majority of the employees have a different view and have voted in favour of the Agreement. The class of employees covered by the Agreement has been fairly chosen. The Agreement passes the better off overall test. In my view all of the requirements for approval have been met. If the requirements for approval have been met, the Commission must approve the Agreement.

Conclusion

[7] 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.

[8] The National Union of Workers 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.

[9] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1)(a), will operate from 21 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2015.

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE400258  PR534781>