DECISION

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

Nestle Australia Limited
(AG2015/1736)

NESTLE (BROADFORD) - NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 2 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for approval of the Nestle (Broadford) - National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Nestle (Broadford) - National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Nestle Australia Limited (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer however taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The National Union of Workers has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with Section 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 9 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nestle Australia Limited sought approval of an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement was made between the company and the National Union of Workers and related to employees at the Broadford factory. The dispute arose as the union contended that the company had failed to bargain in good faith during the negotiation process, which they claimed had led to certain terms of the agreement being less favourable to employees than what could have been achieved through proper negotiation. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the company had engaged in good faith bargaining and if the agreement reflected the outcome of such bargaining. The Commission had to consider the conduct of the parties during negotiations, including whether there were any breaches of the good faith obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if the terms of the agreement were appropriate and fair, considering the context of the bargaining process.

In examining the conduct of the parties, the Commission found that the company had not engaged in good faith bargaining. Evidence showed that the company had not provided necessary information and had engaged in tactics that hindered effective negotiation. The Commission concluded that these actions led to an agreement with terms that were not the best possible outcome for the employees. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval of the agreement, stating that it did not reflect the results of good faith bargaining. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to good faith obligations during enterprise bargaining processes.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the application for approval of the Nestle (Broadford) - National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2014 was dismissed. The Commission's decision underscored the necessity for parties to engage genuinely and transparently in the bargaining process to ensure fair and equitable outcomes for employees.

Nestle Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established