Nestlé Australia Ltd

[2014] FWCA 5304

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Nestlé Australia Ltd
(AG2014/1608)

NESTLE AUSTRALIA LTD (UNCLE TOBYS WAHGUNYAH) AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS’ UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2014

Application for approval of the Nestle Australia Ltd (Uncle Tobys Wahgunyah) Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union Collective Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Nestle Australia Ltd (Uncle Tobys Wahgunyah) Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union Collective Agreement 2014 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by Nestlé Australia Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] Subject to concerns that have been addressed by way of undertakings, 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.

[3] As noted, pursuant to s.190(3), I have accepted undertakings from Nestlé Australia Ltd. In accordance with s.191(1) of the Act the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertakings are attached to this decision.

[4] The agreement does not contain a consultation term with the content required by s.205(1) and (1A) of the Act. Accordingly, in accordance with s.205(2), the model consultation term contained in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the agreement.

[5] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), 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 this organisation.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 August 2014 The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

ATTACHMENT A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this matter were Nestlé Australia Ltd and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. The dispute arose over the application for approval of the collective agreement between the parties, specifically the Nestle Australia Ltd (Uncle Tobys Wahgunyah) Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union Collective Agreement 2014. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for the approval of such agreements.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. The Commission had to consider whether the agreement complied with the procedural fairness requirements and if it contained provisions that were in line with the Fair Work Act's objectives. Additionally, the Commission had to assess if the agreement adequately protected the rights and interests of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the agreement was made in good faith and without coercion. It was found that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval, including those related to procedural fairness. The Commission examined the provisions of the agreement and concluded that they were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided adequate protections for the employees’ rights and interests. As a result, the Commission approved the Nestle Australia Ltd (Uncle Tobys Wahgunyah) Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union Collective Agreement 2014.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was to approve the collective agreement between Nestlé Australia Ltd and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. The Commission found that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval and was made in good faith and without coercion. It was determined that the agreement complied with the procedural fairness requirements and contained provisions consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided adequate protections for the employees' rights and interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established