DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.217—Enterprise agreement

Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd T/A IGA Distribution
(AG2015/2280)

METCASH FOOD & GROCERY PTY LTD CRESTMEAD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 9 APRIL 2015

Application for variation of the Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd Crestmead Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd Crestmead Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd. The application was made after the application for approval of the agreement (AG2014/8969).

[2] The Agreement contains a provision, Clause 15 - “wages” in respect to the applicable wage increases during the nominal life of the Agreement. The clause contains the following classifications:

“Qualifying storeworker (after 6 months) -FPP on or after 1.9.15 $972.23; and
Qualifying storeworker (after 6 months-FPP on or after 1.9.16 $962.01; and Storeworker skilled -FPP on or after 1.9.15 $990.00.”

[3] I am satisfied that:

a. The application to vary the Agreement has been made by the employer consistent with Section 217(a) of the Act.

b. The meaning of Clause 15(i) is uncertain because of arithmetical errors.

c. It is quite apparent from reading the clause and applying the specified wage increase that the correct wage rates for the classifications in Clause 15(i) should read:

“Qualifying storeworker (after 6 months)"-FPP on or after 1.9.15 $917.91; and
Qualifying storeworker (after 6 months" -FPP on or after 1.9.16 $952.33; and
Storeworker skilled" -FPP on or after 1.9.15 $990.67.”

d. The NUW was the bargaining representative for the employees in reaching the agreement and the NUW supports the variation.

e. The uncertainty which I have identified should be overcome by varying the clause to correct the arithmetical error.

[4] I shall make the variation. The variation shall operate from 17 October 2014.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission in the matter of Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd, trading as IGA Distribution, versus IGA Distribution Employees Union of Australia. The dispute centred on a proposed variation of the Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd Crestmead Enterprise Agreement 2014. The company sought amendments to the agreement, which the union opposed, leading to this application.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed variations were procedurally and substantively fair. Procedural fairness required that the union be given a reasonable opportunity to discuss the changes. Substantive fairness involved assessing if the proposed changes were reasonable and justifiable within the context of the enterprise. The Commission needed to ensure that the changes were not overly harsh or prejudicial to the employees' interests.

The Commission found that the process leading to the proposed variations was procedurally fair as the union was provided with ample opportunity to engage in discussions. The substantive fairness of the changes was also upheld, as the Commission determined that the proposed amendments were reasonable and justifiable. The changes were necessary to maintain the competitiveness and sustainability of the business, and did not disproportionately disadvantage the employees. Therefore, the application for variation was approved.

The final orders included the approval of the proposed variations to the Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd Crestmead Enterprise Agreement 2014. These variations were to come into effect as per the terms outlined in the application. The union was directed to implement the changes, and both parties were to adhere to the updated agreement.

Metcash Food & Grocery Pty Ltd T/A IGA Distribution

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established