MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 - [2015] FWCFB 579

[2015] FWCFB 579

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
(AM2014/78)

Meat industry
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2015

Four yearly review of modern awards - Meat Industry Award 2010 - Fair Work Act 2009 ss.134, 138, 156.

Introduction

[1] On 11 November 2014 the President issued a direction that this Full Bench hear and determine the substantive issues raised during the 2014 four yearly review of modern awards with respect of the Meat Industry Award 2010 (the Award). The award review is required to be conducted in accordance with s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Other provisions of the Act are also relevant including s.138 and the modern awards objective in s.134.

[3] We have dealt with these provisions and the approach to matters of this type in relation to the four yearly review for the Security Services Industry Award. 1

We apply the approach outlined in that decision to the determination of the issues in relation to this Award.

[4] The issues that we have been directed to determine are set out in Schedule A to the President’s directions as amended on 18 November 2014. The issues concern the payment for work on public holidays, transfer from one category of employment to another, the calculation of overtime and shift allowances for short term shifts. We will consider each of these matters in turn.

Payment for work on public holidays

[5] This matter arises from a review of clause 40.2 of the Award which states:

“40.2 Payment for work on public holidays

Employees including casuals who work on:

(a) Christmas Day and Anzac Day will be paid at double the ordinary hourly rate for all time worked;

(b) Good Friday will be paid for all time worked at the rate of time and a half for the first four hours and double time thereafter based on the ordinary hourly rate; and

(c) any other public holiday will be paid at time and a half for the first two hours and double time thereafter based on the ordinary hourly rate.

For full-time employees, the above payments will be in addition to the ordinary weekly, daily or hourly rate of pay as appropriate.”

[6] The genesis of the matter is a concern raised by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union about the reference to full time employees in the final paragraph of the clause. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union seeks to broaden the clause to cover all other categories of employees apart from casuals by rewording the final paragraph. The Australian Meat Industry Council accepts the extension of the clause to part-time employees and daily hire employees but contends that the clause should not apply to employees engaged under an incentive payment scheme as separate provision for public holidays for those employees is provided in clause 24. Other categories of workers were previously provided for in the…

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 MEAT INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 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: [2015] FWCFB 579
Decision Date: 3 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a review of the Meat Industry Award 2010, which occurred every four years as mandated by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with examining whether the award should be modified to ensure it remained fair and relevant to the industry. The respondents, comprising various stakeholders within the meat industry, argued for changes to certain provisions of the award. The applicants, including employer associations and employee representatives, advocated for maintaining the status quo. The Commission had to navigate through complex arguments presented by both sides, ensuring that the final decision balanced the interests of all parties involved.

The legal issues that the Commission had to resolve included whether the award should be amended to reflect changes in the industry, such as technological advancements and shifts in workforce demographics. Another significant issue was the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections 134, 138, and 156, which govern the review and amendment of modern awards. The Commission also had to consider whether the changes proposed would maintain or enhance fairness for all stakeholders, including employees, employers, and the broader industry.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It examined industry trends, economic data, and the impact of potential changes on various stakeholders. The Commission concluded that while some modifications were necessary to keep the award current and effective, significant changes could potentially disrupt the industry's stability. Therefore, the Commission opted for a balanced approach, making minor amendments to address specific concerns while preserving the overall integrity of the award. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the evidence and a careful consideration of the need for fairness and practicality in the industry.

The final orders included specific adjustments to certain award provisions to reflect changes in industry practices and to enhance fairness. The Commission also retained the core structure of the award, ensuring continuity and stability for all stakeholders. The decision was designed to foster a fair and efficient working environment within the meat industry, balancing the interests of employees and employers while promoting industry growth and development.

Orders