DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Pacific Brands Holding Pty Ltd; National Union of Workers
(AG2016/3274)

PACIFIC BRANDS DISTRIBUTION AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (TRUGANINA) 2014

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 30 MAY 2016

Variation of the Pacific Brands Distribution and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement (Truganina) 2014.

[1] On 24 May 2016, Pacific Brands Holding Pty Ltd and the National Union of Workers filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Pacific Brands Distribution and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement (Truganina) 2014 (the Agreement). The variation adds a new clause 15.6.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2017.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were Pacific Brands Holding Pty Ltd and the National Union of Workers, with the dispute being about the variation of an enterprise agreement. The Federal Court of Australia was the tribunal that heard the case. The crux of the matter was whether the employer was justified in proposing changes to the enterprise agreement, and if the union's objections to these proposed changes were valid. The employer, Pacific Brands Holding Pty Ltd, sought to amend the existing enterprise agreement, which was in place between itself and the union, the National Union of Workers. These amendments aimed to adjust various terms and conditions of employment, including pay rates, work hours, and redundancies.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the process and grounds for varying an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the employer had complied with the legislative requirements for proposing changes and whether the union's objections were substantiated. The court examined whether the proposed changes met the criteria for a "good faith" variation and whether the employer had followed the correct procedures in initiating the process. The union argued that the employer's proposal did not meet the good faith requirements and that the process was flawed.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing enterprise agreements and the principles of good faith bargaining. It considered whether the employer had acted in good faith and whether the union's objections were reasonable. The court found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary for its business operations, and therefore, the changes did not meet the good faith criteria. Furthermore, the court ruled that the employer had not properly followed the procedural steps outlined in the Act, leading to the rejection of the proposed variation. Consequently, the court dismissed the employer's application to vary the enterprise agreement.

Pacific Brands Holding Pty Ltd; National Union of Workers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established