Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd T/A Go Sushi Broome

Case [2015] FWCA 3494


[2015] FWCA 3494
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd T/A Go Sushi Broome
(AG2015/709)

JODIE ANN NICHOLSON PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Fast food industry

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 27 MAY 2015

Application for approval of the Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On 21 May 2015, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) wrote to the applicant with respect to Sunday trading hours under the Agreement.

[3] In particular, the Commission noted that at 3.4.1 of the applicant’s employer statutory declaration (F17), Sunday penalties were not incorporated into the Agreement rates as the employer did not trade on Sundays. However, at cl. 8.1 of the Agreement - Hours of Work, the Agreement stated that ordinary hours of work for employees can be worked Monday to Sunday inclusive.

[4] The Commission was concerned with this discrepancy as it noted that weekend penalty rates under the Agreement would subsequently be lower for employees who were to work on a Sunday when compared to the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 (the Award) for the purposes of the better off overall test.

[5] On 25 May 2015, the applicant’s legal representative wrote to the Commission confirming that the applicant does not trade on Sundays. However, the applicant provided an undertaking which incorporates Sunday pay rates. The applicant submits that this is to cover the applicant in the event that the applicant may decide to trade on Sundays in the future.

Undertaking

[6] The undertaking provided by the applicant provides Sunday hourly rates that are above the Award.

[7] The undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.

[8] The undertaking is not so substantial that if asked to vote again the employees who voted would not approve the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the undertaking does not result in a substantial change to the Agreement as per s.190(3)(b) of the Act.

[9] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[10] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with section 54(1), the Agreement will operate from 3 May 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of approval

[11] This decision and undertaking should be brought to the attention of employees by the applicant.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE414042  PR567646>

Details
AGLC
Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd T/A Go Sushi Broome [2015] FWCA 3494
Case
[2015] FWCA 3494
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jodie Ann Nicholson Pty Ltd trading as Go Sushi Broome, applied for approval of an enterprise agreement under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on whether the enterprise agreement, which contained various provisions relating to employment conditions, was appropriate for approval under the Act.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, including provisions for minimum wages, penalty rates, maximum weekly hours, and other terms and conditions that must be considered by the Commission. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while no objections were raised by the employees or their representatives.

The Commission considered the various provisions of the agreement and the evidence presented by the applicant. The Commission found that the agreement contained all the required terms and conditions, including those for minimum wages and penalty rates, and that it was not contrary to public policy. The agreement also provided for reasonable maximum weekly hours and other terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission concluded that the agreement met the requirements of the Act and approved it.

The Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise agreement, finding it met all requirements under the Fair Work Act. The agreement was deemed fair and reasonable, and no objections were raised by the employees or their representatives. The approval of the agreement allows the applicant to implement the terms and conditions set out in the agreement.

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.