Multiquip Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWCA 2879

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Multiquip Pty Ltd

(AG2025/1587)

MULTIQUIP LOGANHOLME QLD (LIVE BIRD) DRIVERS AGREEMENT 2025

Poultry processing
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BUTLER	BRISBANE, 28 AUGUST 2025

Application for approval of the Multiquip Loganholme QLD (Live Bird) Drivers Agreement 2025

Multiquip Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) has applied for approval of an enterprise agreement known as Multiquip Loganholme QLD (Live Bird) Drivers Agreement 2025 (“the Agreement”). The Application was made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Fair Work Act”). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

This Application

The Application contains an obvious typographical error in that it refers to the applicant as Multiquip Poultry P/L t/a Chick Trans QLD P/L. I exercise the power in section 586 of the Fair Work Act,[1] under paragraph (a) and/or paragraph (b) of that section, to correct any error in the application, and/or waive any irregularity in the form or manner in which it has been made, to the extent necessary to take the Application as being corrected in that regard.

The signature page for the Agreement, as filed, indicated the employer’s name is “Multiquip t/a Chick Trans QLD P/L Loganholme.” The Employer has filed a replacement signature. I exercise the power in section 586(a) of the Fair Work Act[2] to correct any error in the application. The replacement signature page will be included with the Agreement.

Terms of the Agreement

The Agreement has a typographical error in clause 2, in that the employer’s name is stated to be “Multiquip Poultry P/L Loganholme trading as Chick Trans QLD P/L.” The Employer sought to deal with this by filing a corrected copy of the Agreement.

I am satisfied that the correction to clause 2 should be made and that it is appropriate to do so pursuant to section 218A of the Fair Work Act. The correction to clause 2 is made in accordance with the corrected page of the Agreement filed by the Employer on 23 August 2025.

I sought submissions as to whether the Agreement was consistent with section 196 of the Act, in relation to the definition of shiftworker. The Employer dealt with this by providing an undertaking as indicated below.

The Agreement does not contain a consultation term compliant with the Fair Work Act. Pursuant to section 205(2) and item 107 of Schedule 1 of the Fair Work Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The Agreement does not contain a flexibility term compliant with the Fair Work Act. Pursuant to section 202(4) and item 107 of Schedule 1 of the Fair Work Act, the model flexibility term as prescribed by the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The Agreement does not contain a delegates’ rights term that meets the requirements of section 205A of the Fair Work Act. Pursuant to that section, clause 29A of the Road Transport and Distribution Award is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The National Employment Standards

Noting the undertakings provided, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the National Employment Standards (“NES”) in the Fair Work Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

Conclusion

The Employer has given written undertakings in accordance with section 190 of the Fair Work Act. The undertakings are attached as Annexure A to this decision. I am satisfied that each undertaking is not likely to cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and does not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Each undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

With the undertakings now given, and after having regard to the Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement as well as the application and declarations filed in this matter, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187, 188 and 190 of the Fair Work Act, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with section 54 of the Fair Work Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 August 2029.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

ANNEXURE A

[1] See Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.)[2020] FWCFB 848, [128]-[129], applying CFMMEU v Griffiths Cranes Pty Ltd[2019] FWCFB 1717, [40]-[46].

[2] See Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.)[2020] FWCFB 848, [128]-[129], applying CFMMEU v Griffiths Cranes Pty Ltd[2019] FWCFB 1717, [40]-[46].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Multiquip Pty Ltd, sought approval for the Multiquip Loganholme Queensland (Live Bird) Drivers Agreement 2025 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 233 of the Act. The respondent, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the requirements for a simple, clear and concise agreement as prescribed by the Act.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement complied with the legislative requirements for approval. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement was simple, clear and concise, and whether it met the other criteria for approval set out in the Act. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement provided for adequate protections for employees, and whether it was consistent with the objects of the Act.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement was not simple, clear and concise, and did not meet the requirements for approval. The Commission noted that the agreement contained a number of complex provisions, including provisions relating to the classification and remuneration of employees, and that these provisions were not clearly expressed. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for employees, and that it was inconsistent with the objects of the Act. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Commission's decision provides guidance to employers and unions on the requirements for an agreement to be approved under the Fair Work Act. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that agreements are simple, clear and concise, and that they provide adequate protections for employees. The decision also reinforces the role of the Fair Work Commission in ensuring that agreements are consistent with the objects of the Act.

Multiquip Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established