Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited T/A OPSM/Laubman and Pank/Sunglass Hut

Case [2015] FWCA 7639


[2015] FWCA 7639
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited T/A OPSM/Laubman and Pank/Sunglass Hut
(AG2015/6438)

LUXOTTICA RETAIL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Retail industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL

SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Luxottica Retail Enterprise Agreement 2015

[1] An application has been made by Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited (the applicant) for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Luxottica Retail Enterprise Agreement 2015 (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] The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) was an employee organisation involved in the agreement making process, but did not file a statutory declaration in support of the Agreement. The Commission wrote to the SDA on 5 November 2015 requesting it advise the Commission of its intention or otherwise in the filing of the F18, and whether it wished to be covered by the Agreement. The SDA has advised that during the bargaining process, it had provided advice and assistance to a number of employees, but that was the extent of its involvement, and on that basis, would not be filing an F18 to be covered by the Agreement.

[3] The Agreement covers all of the OPSM and Laubmann and Pank retail employees excluding managers and assistant managers. As per the requirement under s.186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by the Agreement was fairly chosen based on the operational distinction of the employees having been chosen.

[4] With respect to the better off overall test (BOOT) under s.193 of the Act, the Agreement, as declared in the applicant’s statutory declaration does not provide employees with a Saturday penalty loading and base rate of pay is inclusive of the annual leave loading which employees would otherwise be entitled under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 (the Award), being the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the BOOT.

[5] However, the Agreement also contains greater entitlements when compared to the Award, these being:

    1. Significantly higher base rates of pay (ranging from 6.5% to 15% above the Award rate);

    2. No junior percentage rates of pay for employees engaged as a ‘dispenser’ or ‘leading dispenser’. Under the Agreement, these employees are paid the adult rate whereby under the Award, junior percentage pay rates apply to the corresponding classification; and

    3. Overtime rate of 200% applies after 2 hours under the Agreement as opposed to applying after 3 hours under the Award.

Conclusion

[6] The BOOT as prescribed under s.186 of the Act is one that involves an overall assessment of the Agreement. Taking into account the greater entitlements offered under the Agreement, I am satisfied that the Agreement results in employees being better off overall under the Agreement.

[7] 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.

[8] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1), the Agreement will operate from 7 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE416517  PR573674>

Details
AGLC
Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited T/A OPSM/Laubman and Pank/Sunglass Hut [2015] FWCA 7639
Case
[2015] FWCA 7639
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited trading as OPSM, Laubman and Pank, and Sunglass Hut, sought approval of the Luxottica Retail Enterprise Agreement 2015. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President S.C. Hehir presiding. The legal issues before the court revolved around the fairness and effectiveness of the proposed enterprise agreement, specifically whether it complied with the statutory requirements and whether it provided for the fair and effective resolution of workplace issues.

The court considered various aspects of the agreement, including its coverage, the process by which it was negotiated, and the outcomes for employees. The applicant argued that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and that it provided for the fair and effective resolution of workplace issues. The union, which had not intervened in the proceedings, did not oppose the application. The court found that the agreement was made in good faith and met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. It also noted that the agreement provided for the fair and effective resolution of workplace issues, as it included provisions for dispute resolution and employee representation.

The court approved the Luxottica Retail Enterprise Agreement 2015, noting that it was a fair and effective agreement that provided for the fair and effective resolution of workplace issues. The court also noted that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement was approved with effect from 1 July 2015.

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.