DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos
(AG2014/7182)

THE HERITAGE LION DAIRY & DRINKS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 2013

Tasmania
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2014

Application for variation of The Heritage Lion Dairy & Drinks Maintenance Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to The Heritage Lion Dairy & Drinks Maintenance Agreement 2013 1(the Agreement). The application was made by LD & D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks approval of various variations, including variations to the Agreement to implement a new roster. Clauses varied include Clause 6 “Individual Flexibility” , Clause 12 “Hours of Work, Rostering and Overtime”, Clause 13 “Personal Carer’s Leave”, Clause 14 “Annual Leave”, Clause 20 “Public Holidays” and Clause 28 “Dispute Settlement Procedure”.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 21 October 2014.

COMMISSIONER

1 AE402745

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LD&D Foods Pty Ltd, trading as Lactos, applied to the Federal Circuit Court to vary The Heritage Lion Dairy & Drinks Maintenance Agreement 2013. The applicant sought to alter the terms of the agreement, which governed the maintenance and supply of goods between the parties. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the changes proposed by the applicant were unreasonable and not in line with the original agreement.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the variation of the agreement, and whether the proposed changes were reasonable and in the best interests of both parties. The court had to consider the principles of contract law, particularly those relating to the variation of contracts, and assess whether there was evidence of mutual agreement or coercion that would warrant the court's intervention.

The court found that the applicant had not provided adequate justification for the proposed changes, and that the respondent had not acted unreasonably in opposing the application. The court held that there was no mutual agreement between the parties to vary the contract, and that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the court's intervention. The court rejected the application and ordered that the original terms of the agreement remain in place.

The court emphasised the importance of mutual agreement and good faith in the variation of contracts, and cautioned against unilateral changes that could prejudice the interests of one party. The decision serves as a reminder to parties in maintenance agreements to carefully consider the implications of any proposed changes and to seek agreement from the other party before implementing them.

LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established