DECISION

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

Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd
(AG2015/6053)

G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge T/A John, Patricia and Gary Shoobridge
(AG2015/6513)

Novacott Downs Pty Ltd as trustee for The Roth Family Trust T/A Novacott Downs Pty Ltd
(AG2015/6761)

Agricultural industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY	BRISBANE, 18 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015; Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2015; Novacott Downs Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015- Agreements do not pass the better off overall test (BOOT) -

1. BACKGROUND

[1] Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd; G.J Shoobridge & J Shoobridge & P.K Shoobridge T/A John, Patricia and Gary Shoobridge; and Novacott Downs Pyt Ltd as trustee for The Roth Family Trust T/A Novacott Downs Pty Ltd (the Applicants) apply in accordance with Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for approval of:

● Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Redlea Agreement);
● Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Shoobridge Agreement);and
● Novacott Downs Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Novacott Agreement)

collectively, the Agreements.

[2] The Applicants are represented by Mr Waters of MRH Lawyers. The Agreements are in substantially identical terms and it is convenient to deal with them in a single Decision. On 24 November 2015, I caused correspondence to be forwarded to Mr Waters raising a number of concerns I had with the Agreements and in particular whether they passed the better off overall test (BOOT) as set out in s.193 of the Act. A response to those matters was provided by email from Mr Waters on 30 November and 7 December 2015.

[3] After considering the emailed response on behalf of the Applicants, I continue to have concerns about whether the Agreements pass the BOOT. The issues I have with the Agreements are considered below.

1. CONSIDERATION

1.1 Classifications and wages

[1] Each of the applications for approval was lodged with a Form F16 and a Form F17. The Form F17 Employer statutory declaration in support of approval filed with each Agreement states that for the purpose of the BOOT, the reference instrument that covers each of the employers and the employees covered by the Agreements is the Horticulture Award 2010 (the Award).

[2] In relation to translating classifications, each Form F17 states that none of the classifications in the Agreements are different from the classifications in the Award. It is further stated that the Agreements do not contain any terms or conditions of employment that are more beneficial than equivalent terms and conditions in the reference instruments and that the Agreements do not contain any terms that are less beneficial than equivalent terms and conditions in the reference instruments. Further it is stated that the Agreements do not confer any entitlements that are not conferred by the Award.

[3] The primary business of each of the Employers is said to be “Labour Hire” and…

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.

Continue reading Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 333
Case: [2016] FWC 333
Decision Date: 18 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd, Shoobridge & Son, and Novacott Downs Pty Ltd applied for approval of their respective enterprise agreements. The dispute arose from the applicants' contention that the agreements met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the enterprise agreements passed the better off overall test (BOOT). This involved assessing whether the proposed agreements provided employees with overall benefits that were at least as good as the benefits they would receive under the applicable awards.

The Fair Work Commission examined the terms of the enterprise agreements to ensure they met the necessary criteria under section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether the agreements provided employees with a safety net of rights and protections at least as good as those under the relevant awards. The Commission also considered whether the agreements provided for a more efficient and productive workplace, and whether the benefits provided to employees outweighed any detriments. In making this assessment, the Commission took into account the overall terms and conditions of employment, including wages, leave entitlements, and other benefits.

After careful consideration, the Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreements did not meet the BOOT. The Commission concluded that the proposed changes to the employees' terms and conditions of employment did not provide them with overall benefits that were at least as good as those under the applicable awards. The Commission noted that while the agreements contained some improvements, they did not outweigh the detriments to the employees. Consequently, the application for approval of the agreements was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission did not approve the Redlea Citrus Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015, the Shoobridge & Son Enterprise Agreement 2015, and the Novacott Downs Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015. The Commission found that these agreements failed to meet the better off overall test, as they did not provide employees with overall benefits at least as good as those under the relevant awards. The applicants were directed to negotiate further with the employees to reach an agreement that satisfied the BOOT.

Orders