Pierre Properties Pty Ltd T/A Cactus Jacks and IMC Steakhouse

[2024] FWCFB 351

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009

Sch. 3, Item 20A(4) - Application to extend default period for agreement-based transitional instruments

Pierre Properties Pty Ltd T/A Cactus Jacks and IMC Steakhouse

(AG2024/2024)

CACTUS JACK’S RESTAURANTS – QUEENSLAND – CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2004-2007

Fast food industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN	SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2024

Application to extend the default period for the PILCH Staff Agreement 2008

Pursuant to subitem 20A(4) of Sch 3 to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth), Pierre Properties Pty Ltd T/A Cactus Jacks and IMC Steakhouse applied to extend the default period for the Cactus Jack’s Restaurants – Queensland – Certified Agreement 2004-2007 (the 2004 Agreement).

An earlier application seeking to extend the default period of the Agreement was granted extending it to 6 June 2024[1]. The Applicant sought a further extension to allow a replacement agreement to be finalised. The extension sought was until 6 December 2024.

The Applicant explained that on 21 May 2024 it conducted a ballot of employees for approval of a replacement enterprise agreement and obtained a valid majority in favour of approval. The Applicant filed an application for the Commission for approval of the agreement on 21 July 2024. The application was dismissed due to concerns that it did not meet the better off overall test[2].

The Applicant has decided not to not seek a replacement agreement and no longer presses its application to extend the 2004 Agreement.

In circumstances where the Applicant no longer intends to negotiate a replacement agreement or pursue the application to extend the default period for the 2004 Agreement, it is neither appropriate to extend the Agreement under item 20A(6)(a) nor reasonable to do so under subitem 20A(6)(b) and the application is dismissed.

As our decision is made after the Agreement was to terminate in accordance with the first extended default period, we must extend the default period to the day of this decision or specify a day that is not more than 14 days after the date of this decision.

[7] The Applicant sought that the Agreement be extended by 14 days from our decision. We have decided that to enable the Applicant to make the necessary administrative arrangements to give effect to the sunsetting of the Agreement the default period is extended until 29 August 2024. The Agreement is published, in accordance with subitem 20A(10A), on the Fair Work Commission’s website.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] [2024] FWCFB 128

[2] [2024] FWC 2114

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Pierre Properties Pty Ltd T/A Cactus Jacks and IMC Steakhouse, the primary focus was on an application to extend the default period stipulated in the PILCH Staff Agreement 2008. The dispute involved the respondents' request to extend the time frame for certain actions that needed to be undertaken following a default in the agreement. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal with jurisdiction over workplace relations and employment matters in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the respondents had provided sufficient grounds to justify an extension of the default period. The Commission needed to consider the statutory provisions governing such extensions and the principles of fairness and equity in employment law. It was crucial to determine whether the respondents' reasons for seeking an extension were legitimate and whether granting the extension would align with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the specific circumstances of the default and the respondents' explanation for the delay in addressing it. The Commission concluded that while the respondents had provided some justifications, they did not fully meet the criteria required for an extension. Consequently, the application to extend the default period was dismissed. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of timely compliance with employment agreements and the limited circumstances under which extensions may be granted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established