Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
[2025] FWCA 3245
•24 SEPTEMBER 2025
| [2025] FWCA 3245 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
(AG2025/2552)
INGHAMS ENTERPRISES (INGLEBURN) AND AMIEU ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT 2025
| Poultry processing | |
| COMMISSIONER CLARKE | MELBOURNE, 24 SEPTEMBER 2025 |
Application for approval of the Inghams Enterprises (Ingleburn) & AMIEU Enterprise Agreement 2025
An application has been made for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Inghams Enterprises (Ingleburn) and AMIEU Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant s. 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application has been made by Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (employer).
The Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (AMIEU), being a bargaining representative for the agreement, has given notice under s.183 that it wants the Agreement to cover AMIEU. In accordance with s.201(2) I therefore note that the Agreement covers AMIEU. By way of declaration in form F18, AMIEU has supported the approval of the Agreement.
Prior to approving the agreement, it was necessary to make some further enquiries of the parties relating to following matters:
(a) Clause 4.2.3 of the Agreement contemplated employees being directed to perform 12 hour shifts. It appeared that there may be some employees, particularly casuals at Grade 1, Level 1 or Grade 2 classifications that would not be better off overall were that to occur, given that overtime would be payable for two of those hours under the Award but for none of those hours under the Poultry Processing Award 2020 (Award).
(b) The absence of an overtime payment for day workers working past 5PM under the agreement likewise raised an issue as to whether those employees would be better of overall.
(c) A Notice of Employee Representational Rights (NERR) was said to have been provided both on notice boards and on an “internal communications platform”. It wasn’t immediately apparent what the latter involved.
(d) The Agreement contained casual conversion provisions which appeared to operate to supplement the NES rights, however, were expressed in part in a way that appeared to purport to limit those rights, most glaringly in respect of the continuous service requirement.
(e) The Agreement lacked a minimum engagement provision for part time employees, compared to the Award which stipulated 3 hours. It may well have been the case that it was not “reasonably foreseeable” within the meaning of section 193A(6) and 193A(6A) of the Act that a part time employee would be required to work less than 3 hours per shift, but that was not apparent on the face of the materials provided.
(f) It was not immediately apparent on the face of the materials whether employees working afternoon shifts as defined in clause 20.1(b) of the Award would be better off having regard to the basis for applying shift penalties as set out in clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the Agreement.
(g) Both the Award and the Agreement covered juniors and trainees, however, the Agreement contained no distinct wages or conditions of employment in respect of those groups. Confirmation was sought as to whether it was intended that trainees and juniors were to be classified and paid in accordance with the terms of the Agreement without distinction from other employees.
In correspondence with chambers, the following resolutions were reached in respect of these issues:
(a) In relation to the overtime concerns raised about potential 12 hour shifts, The employer advised that “It is not reasonably foreseeable that employees at the Ingleburn processing plant will be rostered or required to perform ordinary shifts of 12 hours in duration. The current rostering practices and operational requirements of the business limit ordinary hours to a maximum of 7.6 hours or 8 hours (inclusive of RDO accrual), and there is no intention to extend these shifts to 12-hour shifts”. This resolves the expressed concern, having regard to sections 193A(6) and 193(6A) of the Act.
(b) The employer submitted that work past 5PM was not intended to be rostered but may arise occasionally. The employer highlighted that some employees, being those with the lowest margins above the modern award rates, had specific overtime provisions that ensured that they were better off overall. The employer noted that the base rates had been structured in a way which “expressly considered” overtime provisions of the award. Certainly, it appears that the employees who are not entitled to the specific overtime provisions remained better off overall when working 11 hour shifts under the Agreement rather than the Award, based on the Commission’s calculations (as above, 12 hour shifts were not reasonably foreseeable). The employer’s explanation resolves this concern.
(c) The employer provided to the Commission a copy of the NERR as distributed by means of the internal platform referred to and it met all relevant requirements.
(d) An undertaking by the employer was offered to resolve the concerns regarding the casual conversion provisions at clause 3.6.4.
(e) Whilst the employer’s position was that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a part time employee would be required to work less than 3 hours per shift, an undertaking was offered to enshrine a 3 hour minimum engagement period for part time employees.
(f) A series of calculations were provided by the employer which illustrated that employees working afternoon shifts were better off overall notwithstanding the difference basis for applying shift penalties.
(g) The employer confirmed that trainees and juniors were to be classified and paid in accordance with the terms of the Agreement without distinction from other employees.
Although the AMIEU were included in all correspondence leading to these resolutions, they offered no comment in relation to any of them.
Subject to the undertakings referred to above and having taken into account the materials provided with the application for approval and since, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss. 186, 187, 188 and 190 as relevant to this application for approval have been met. The undertaking is taken to be at term of the Agreement and is provided at Annexure A of this decision. The views of the AMIEU were sought in relation to the undertaking, but none were provided. I am satisfied that the undertaking will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 October 2025. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 4 June 2028.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE530579 PR792076>
Annexure A
0
0
0