DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Scott Emery T/A Yarra Valley Shopfitters
(AG2014/8618)

YARRA VALLEY SHOPFITTERS PTY LTD ON-SITE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 20 OCTOBER 2014

Variation of the Yarra Valley Shopfitters Pty Ltd On-Site Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Yarra Valley Shopfitters Pty Ltd On-Site Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement), pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Scott Emery t/as Yarra Valley Shopfitters.

[2] The Agreement is varied by deleting clause and inserting the following in its place:

3. Scope & Application

This Agreement applies in all states and territories of Australia to:

(a) The company in respect to all of its employees engaged in building and construction work as defined by the award.

(b) Employees of the company who are engaged in any of the occupations callings or industries specified in the award.

[3] 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. Therefore, the application is approved and, in accordance with s.216 of the Act, shall come into effect from 20 October 2014.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scott Emery trading as Yarra Valley Shopfitters, the applicant sought to vary the Yarra Valley Shopfitters Pty Ltd On-Site Enterprise Agreement 2012. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The applicant sought to reduce the number of hours classified as penalty rates under the enterprise agreement, arguing that the changes were necessary due to a significant downturn in the business, which he attributed to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent, the union representing the employees, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary or that the union had been adequately consulted.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary and whether the union had been adequately consulted in relation to the changes. The Commission noted that the applicant had provided evidence of a significant downturn in business, which had resulted in a reduction in hours worked by employees. However, the Commission found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed changes were necessary or that there were no alternative options available to achieve the desired outcome. The Commission also found that the union had not been adequately consulted in relation to the proposed changes.

In light of the above findings, the Commission rejected the application. The Commission noted that it was not satisfied that the proposed changes were necessary and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the changes were the least detrimental option available. The Commission also noted that the union had not been adequately consulted in relation to the proposed changes, which was a requirement under the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for a variation of the Yarra Valley Shopfitters Pty Ltd On-Site Enterprise Agreement 2012. The Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary and that the union had not been adequately consulted in relation to the changes. The applicant's application was therefore dismissed.

Scott Emery T/A Yarra Valley Shopfitters

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established