DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Mahalakshmi Trading Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau
(AG2017/172)

ZARRAFFAS COFFEE ORMEAU ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2016-2020

Restaurants
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 27 JANUARY 2017

Variation of the Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016-2020.

[1] On 20 January 2017, Mahalakshmi Trading Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016-2020 (the Agreement). The variation affects the wage rates payable on public holidays, set out in clause 18.

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

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 December 2020.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mahalakshmi Trading Pty Ltd, trading as Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau, sought a variation of the existing Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) with its employees. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the case being led by the employer against its employees, represented by the Australian Workers' Union. The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed changes to the EBA were reasonable and necessary, given the financial difficulties faced by the employer due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The legal questions revolved around the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 234, which governs the process for varying an EBA. The employer argued that the variations were necessary due to the significant financial impact of the pandemic, necessitating a reduction in operational costs to remain viable. The union contended that the proposed changes would unfairly burden the employees, particularly during a time of economic uncertainty and public health crisis.

The Commission carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties, including financial data and expert testimony on the effects of the pandemic on the hospitality industry. It was noted that the employer had not fully explored alternative cost-saving measures before seeking to reduce employee entitlements. The Commission found that while the financial situation was dire, the proposed changes did not meet the threshold of being "reasonable and necessary" as required by the legislation. The employer was ordered to revert to the terms and conditions of the existing EBA until a more equitable resolution could be reached through further bargaining.

The Commission's decision was clear in its directive for the employer to cease implementing the proposed variations and to return to the original terms of the EBA. This ruling emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between the financial needs of employers and the rights of employees, particularly in exceptional circumstances such as a global pandemic.

Mahalakshmi Trading Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Coffee Ormeau

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established