Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 8106

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 16 October 2013

Please note there was a typographical error in the main title of the previously issued document, namely the words “enterprise agreement” appeared at the end of title.

Sarah Laube

Associate to Deputy President Bartel

Dated 17 October 2013

[2013] FWCA 8106

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd
(AG2013/9737)

S SMITH & SON PTY LTD TENTH ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Wine Industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BARTEL	ADELAIDE, 16 OCTOBER 2013

Application for approval of the S Smith & Son Pty Ltd Tenth Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.

[1] An application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the S Smith & Son Pty Ltd Tenth Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (the Agreement) has been made by Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd (the employer). The application has been made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and is an application for a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement does not include a consultation term that meets the requirement of s.205(1) of the Act, and in accordance with s.205(2) of the Act the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the Agreement. The model term is now appended to the Agreement as Schedule 3.

[3] 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.

[4] United Voice and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, Electrical, Energy and Services Division (the CEPU) were bargaining representatives for the Agreement and each has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. As required by s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers United Voice and the CEPU.

[5] The Agreement is approved. The operative date identified in the Agreement is 1 October 2013, however s.54(1) of the Act provides that the earliest date on which an enterprise agreement can operate is 7 days after it is approved by the Fair Work Commission. Accordingly, the commencement date of the Agreement is 23 October 2013, however the employer can apply the terms of the Agreement administratively from an earlier date. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd, a company, and its employees, who sought approval of the company's Tenth Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the negotiation process and the content of the proposed EBA. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the EBA was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. This included assessing if the negotiation process was fair and if the terms of the agreement were reasonable. The Commission had to determine if the agreement met the criteria for approval, including whether it provided for minimum wages and conditions, and if it was certified by an independent certifier.

The Fair Work Commission examined the negotiation process and the content of the proposed EBA. It found that the negotiation process was fair and that the agreement provided for minimum wages and conditions. The Commission also considered the views of the employees and the employer, and concluded that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission certified the agreement as meeting the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. It approved the Tenth Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, subject to certain conditions.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Tenth Enterprise Bargaining Agreement between Samuel Smith & Son Pty Ltd and its employees, subject to specific conditions. The decision was based on the finding that the negotiation process was fair, and that the agreement provided for minimum wages and conditions. The Commission also determined that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, and that it met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision provides a framework for future negotiations and agreements between the parties, and sets a precedent for similar cases in the industrial relations sphere.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established