DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Norco Co-operative Limited
(AG2020/490)

NORCO CO-OPERATIVE RURAL RETAIL AND AGRIBUSINESS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019

Retail industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS	NEWCASTLE, 2 JUNE 2020

Application for approval of the Norco Co-operative Rural Retail and Agribusiness Enterprise Agreement 2019.

Introduction and background

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Norco Co-operative Rural Retail and Agribusiness Enterprise Agreement 2019 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement covers employees working in Norco Co-operative Limited’s (Norco) rural stores and feed mill, as well as some of Norco’s clerical and transport workers who are employed by Norco in New South Wales and Queensland in relation to its rural stores and feed mill.

[3] Norco has provided written undertakings (Undertakings) to support its application for approval of the Agreement. A copy of the Undertakings is attached in Annexure A to this decision.

[4] The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) was a bargaining representative for the Agreement. It filed an F18 in which it stated that it did not wish to advise the Fair Work Commission (Commission) whether it supported approval of the Agreement and raised some concerns in relation to the F17 filed by Norco in support of its application for approval of the Agreement. Further, in written submissions filed in the Commission on 25 May 2020, the SDA submitted:

“The SDA recognises the undertakings provided by Mr Kendall of the Applicant would make significant improvements to the Agreement. As a result, the Agreement is now far more likely to pass the BOOT…”

[5] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) was a bargaining representative for the Agreement. It filed an F18 in which it stated that it supported approval of the Agreement “subject to any undertakings required” and raised some concerns in relation to the F17 filed by Norco in support of its application for approval of the Agreement. Further, in written submissions filed in the Commission, the TWU submitted that it remained concerned that the Agreement “may not pass the BOOT insofar as it affects our members”. The TWU’s written submissions identify a number of better off overall concerns which they contend “remain outstanding”.

[6] A hearing, by telephone, was conducted on 1 June 2020 in relation to Norco’s application for approval of the Agreement. Mr Capelin, solicitor, was granted permission to represent Norco, pursuant to s 596(2)(a) of the Act. Mr Worsley, Industrial Officer of the SDA, appeared at the hearing and made brief oral submissions to supplement his written submissions. The TWU notified the Commission in its written submissions that it would “not be participating in the hearing listed before Deputy President Saunders, Monday, 1 June 2020 and we await the decision of the Commission”.

Evidence

[7] Apart from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Norco Co-operative Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FWCA 2869
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Norco Co-operative Limited brought an application to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Norco Co-operative Rural Retail and Agribusiness Enterprise Agreement 2019. The application was opposed by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and the National Union of Workers. The dispute centred on the proposed terms and conditions of employment within the enterprise agreement, specifically regarding issues of remuneration, penalty rates, and other employment-related matters.

The key legal issues before the commission were whether the proposed agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether it met the "better off overall test" as required by the legislation. This test ensures that employees under the proposed agreement are not worse off financially than they would be under their existing terms and conditions, and that the agreement promotes harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations.

The commission undertook a detailed analysis of the proposed agreement, examining the financial implications for employees and the overall impact on workplace relations. The commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and evaluated the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed terms. Ultimately, the commission found that the proposed agreement met the better off overall test and did not have any detrimental effects on employees. The commission also noted the cooperative nature of Norco and the importance of maintaining fair and productive workplace relations within the rural retail and agribusiness sector.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Norco Co-operative Rural Retail and Agribusiness Enterprise Agreement 2019, effective from the date of the decision. The approval was based on the finding that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act.

Orders