DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Mondelēz Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2017/1793)

MONDELēZ AUSTRALIA SUTTONTOWN PRODUCTION
AGREEMENT 2016

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 8 JUNE 2017

Application for approval of the Mondelēz Australia Suttontown Production Agreement 2016.

[1] On 19 May 2017 Mondelēz Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant) made an application for approval of the Mondelēz Australia Suttontown Production Agreement 2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was lodged within 14 days after it was made.

[3] The Commission is satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187 and 188 of the Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, has been met.

[4] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The United Voice, 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), the Commission notes that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s 54 of the Act the Agreement will operate from 15 June 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mondelēz Australia Pty Ltd applied for the approval of the Mondelēz Australia Suttontown Production Agreement 2016. The agreement, a collective instrument under the Fair Work Act 2009, aimed to establish terms and conditions of employment for workers at the Suttontown production facility. The application was contested by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which argued that the agreement did not adequately address several employee concerns.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the validity and fairness of the agreement under the Fair Work Act. The court had to determine whether the agreement was made in good faith, if it provided for the proper classification of employees, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for a valid agreement. Furthermore, the court examined whether the agreement sufficiently protected employee interests, particularly in relation to job security, redundancy, and other employment conditions.

The court found that the agreement was largely compliant with the Fair Work Act, noting that it was made in good faith and met the procedural requirements. The court acknowledged the union's concerns but concluded that the agreement provided adequate protections and benefits for the employees. The court emphasised that while the agreement might not perfectly align with the union's preferences, it was not unreasonable or unfair under the circumstances. The court's decision hinged on the balance between the parties' rights and the need to maintain operational efficiency at the production facility.

The final orders of the court approved the Mondelēz Australia Suttontown Production Agreement 2016, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement. The court directed that the agreement be registered and enforceable under the Fair Work Act. The decision reflected a careful consideration of the statutory framework and the practicalities of the workplace, ultimately upholding the agreement as a valid collective instrument.

Mondelēz Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established