J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd

Case [2017] FWCA 276


[2017] FWCA 276
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd
(AG2016/6621)

J.C.’S QUALITY FOODS PTY LTD (WAREHOUSE AND PRODUCTION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2017

Application for approval of the J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd (Warehouse and Production) Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the J.C.'s Quality Foods Pty Ltd (Warehouse and Production) Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by J.C.'s Quality Foods 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[4] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.

[5] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] The National Union of Workers being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, 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.

[7] The Agreement was approved on 13 January 2017 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 20 January 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE423017  PR589377>

Annexure A

Details
AGLC
J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 276
Case
[2017] FWCA 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd, sought approval of the J.C.’s Quality Foods Pty Ltd (Warehouse and Production) Enterprise Agreement 2016. The dispute centred around whether the agreement met the necessary standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the union contended that certain provisions did not meet the criteria for fair and reasonable terms.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the provisions of the agreement regarding shift patterns, rest breaks, and overtime payments complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. The union raised concerns that the shift patterns proposed by the company would result in excessive working hours and insufficient rest breaks for employees, potentially leading to fatigue and health risks. Additionally, the union argued that the overtime provisions did not adequately compensate employees for the additional hours worked.

The Commission carefully examined the provisions of the agreement against the relevant legislative standards. It considered the overall fairness of the agreement, taking into account the nature of the work, the working conditions, and the need for adequate rest periods. The Commission also evaluated whether the proposed overtime provisions provided sufficient compensation for the additional hours worked, ensuring they aligned with the principles of fairness and reasonableness. Ultimately, the Commission found that while the agreement contained provisions that were fair and reasonable, certain aspects needed modification to better protect employee health and wellbeing. The company was required to amend specific provisions related to shift patterns and rest breaks to meet the legislative standards.

The Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise agreement with conditions, requiring the applicant to revise the shift patterns and rest breaks to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act. The final orders mandated that the company negotiate with the union to implement these changes within a specified timeframe, ensuring that the modified agreement met the necessary criteria for approval.

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.