Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1985

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5114)

METCASH FOOD & GROCERY PTY LTD AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013: KIDMAN PARK OPERATIONS

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 2 APRIL 2013

Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013: Kidman Park Operations.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013: Kidman Park Operations (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] As the Agreement does not contain a consultation term which meets the requirements of s.205 of the Act, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[3] 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.

[4] The National Union of Workers, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 12 February 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer, <Price code G, AE400568 PR535310>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd brought an application against the National Union of Workers in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant sought a declaration that certain employees of the company were not covered by the terms of the National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute centred around whether the employees in question were appropriately classified under the agreement. The matter was heard by the Commission at Sydney.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the employees in question were appropriately classified under the National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013. The applicant argued that the employees were not covered by the agreement as they were not part of the bargaining unit for which the agreement was made. The Union, on the other hand, argued that the employees were indeed covered by the agreement and were entitled to the benefits provided therein.

The Commission found that the employees in question were not appropriately classified under the National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013. The court held that the employees did not fall within the bargaining unit for which the agreement was made and therefore were not covered by the agreement. The court further held that the applicant was entitled to the declaration sought.

The Fair Work Commission declared that the employees in question were not covered by the National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013. The Union was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established