McDonald's Australia Limited - [2013] FWC 2477

[2013] FWC 2477

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 248 - Application for a single interest employer authorisation

McDonald's Australia Limited
(B2013/793)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 23 APRIL 2013

Application for a single interest employer authorisation - franchisees of McDonald’s Australia Limited seek new agreement - relevant tests - application granted.

[1] By application, pursuant to s 248 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), McDonald’s Australia Limited (the ‘applicant’) seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission)’) of a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed new enterprise agreement.

[2] The relevant provisions of the Act governing an application of this kind require the Commission to be satisfied of a number of matters. If the Commission is so satisfied then it must make the authorisation. These matters are set out in ss 249(1) - (4) and s 250 of the Act as follows:

‘249 When the FWC must make a single interest employer authorisation

Single interest employer authorisation

(1) The FWC must make a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application for the authorisation has been made; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that:

(i) the employers that will be covered by the agreement have agreed to bargain together; and

(ii) no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of the employers to agree to bargain together; and

(c) the requirements of either subsection (2) (which deals with franchisees) or (3) (which deals with employers that may bargain together for a proposed enterprise agreement) are met.

Franchisees

(2) The requirements of this subsection are met if the FWC is satisfied that the employers carry on similar business activities under the same franchise and are:

(a) franchisees of the same franchisor; or

(b) related bodies corporate of the same franchisor; or

Employers that may bargain together for the agreement

(3) The requirements of this subsection are met if the FWC is satisfied that all of the employers are specified in a declaration made under section 247 in relation to the agreement.

Operation of authorisation

(4) The authorisation:

(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and

(b) ceases to be in operation at the earlier of the following:

(i) the day on which the enterprise agreement to which the authorisation relates is made;

(ii) 12 months after the day on which the authorisation is made or, if the period is extended under section 252, at the end of that period.

‘250 What a single interest employer authorisation must specify

What authorisation must specify

(1) A single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement must specify the following:

(a) the employers that will be covered by the agreement;

(b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement;

(d) any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McDonald's Australia Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FWC 2477
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by McDonald’s Australia Limited, a franchisor, against its franchisees. The franchisees sought a single interest employer authorisation to negotiate a new enterprise agreement, aiming to standardise terms across all franchises. The dispute centred around whether the franchisees qualified as a single interest employer, and if the proposed agreement would benefit all parties involved. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining these issues.

The legal issues before the Commission involved assessing whether the franchisees constituted a single interest employer and whether the proposed agreement met the criteria for an authorisation. The primary consideration was whether the agreement would achieve better economic, productivity, and workplace relations outcomes for the employees of the franchisees, as well as the franchisor. The Commission needed to examine the evidence provided by both parties and apply the relevant statutory tests.

The Commission concluded that the franchisees met the criteria for a single interest employer, given their common business model and similar operational structures. It found that the proposed agreement had the potential to improve workplace relations and productivity across the franchise network. The Commission determined that the benefits of the new agreement, including standardised terms and improved efficiency, outweighed any potential detriments. As a result, the application for a single interest employer authorisation was granted, allowing the franchisees to proceed with negotiating the new enterprise agreement.

Orders