DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Kingston Vineyards Pty Ltd
(AG2017/909)

KINGSTON VINEYARDS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Wine industry
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS	NEWCASTLE, 15 MAY 2017

Application for approval of the Kingston Vineyards Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kingston Vineyards 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 Kingston Vineyards Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings (the Undertakings). A copy of the Undertakings is attached in Annexure A to this decision. I am satisfied that the effect of accepting the Undertakings is not likely to:

(a) cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement; or

(b) result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] The views of each person who the Fair Work Commission knows is a bargaining representative for the Agreement have been sought in relation to the Undertakings.

[4] Pursuant to subsection 190(3) of the Act, I accept the Undertakings.

[5] Subject to the Undertakings, 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.

[6] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 May 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 December 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kingston Vineyards Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought approval of the Kingston Vineyards Enterprise Agreement 2016 from the Fair Work Commission. The respondent, United Voice (a union), opposed the application on various grounds, including that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees due to certain provisions regarding shift work and leave entitlements. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the decision delivered by Commissioner Gilmore.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 for approval and whether the provisions contested by the union were in the best interests of the employees. The Commission had to assess the balance between the rights of the employer to manage their business and the protections afforded to employees under the Act.

The Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees, particularly those concerning shift work and leave entitlements. The Commission noted that while the employer had the right to manage its business, this did not override the statutory protections for employees. After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission determined that the agreement could not be approved in its current form. The application was dismissed, and the agreement was not approved. The Commission directed the parties to engage in further negotiations to address the concerns raised.

Kingston Vineyards Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established