Sebking Pty Ltd T/A Hungry Jacks

Case [2014] FWCA 1414


[2014] FWCA 1414

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Sebking Pty Ltd T/A Hungry Jacks
(AG2014/25)

SEBKING PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Fast food industry

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 27 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Sebking Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sebking Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

Casual rates of pay

[2] In correspondence to the Applicant via its legal representative, the Commission noted that clause 12 - Wage increases, and in particular, sub clause 12.2, states that casual employees will be paid 123% above the permanent rates of pay as determined in accordance with clause 12.1. Upon reviewing the casual rates of pay contained in the Agreement the Commission informed the Applicant that the casual rates of pay appeared to be only 121.67% and 121.87% above the permanent rates of pay.

[3] The Applicant’s legal representative submits that sub clause 12.2 requires that the differential between the casual rates and permanent rates of pay in Schedule A of the Agreement only rise to 23% from the first full pay period on or 1 July in each year of the nominal term of the Agreement.

[4] Further, the Applicant has stated that the intention of the wage increase clause is to ensure casual employees under the Agreement are not disadvantaged due to transitioning and submits that it has provided for an additional uplift to the test time differential between permanent and casual rates from 21.76% to 23% which will apply from the first full pay period on or 1 July in each year of the nominal term of the Agreement.

Undertakings

[5] In correspondence to the Applicant via its legal representative, the Commission noted that the Agreement does not contain a meal allowance. As per clause 19.1 – Meal allowance, of the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 (the Award), being the relevant modern award for the purpose of the better off overall test, provides that an employee who is required to work more than one hour of overtime after the employee’s ordinary time of ending work, without being given 24 hours’ notice, will be either provided with a meal or paid a meal allowance of $11.76. Where such overtime work exceeds four hours a further meal allowance of $10.61 will be paid.

[6] The Applicant has provided an undertaking as per the entitlement set out in the Award.

[7] The undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the undertaking is attached at Annexure A.

[8] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[9] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) the Agreement will operate from 6 March 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of operation.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE407059  PR548192>

Details
AGLC
Sebking Pty Ltd T/A Hungry Jacks [2014] FWCA 1414
Case
[2014] FWCA 1414
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sebking Pty Ltd, trading as Hungry Jacks, the applicant sought approval of the Sebking Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013. The respondent, the Fast Food Retail Workers Union of Victoria, opposed the application. The primary dispute centred around the terms of the proposed agreement, particularly concerning wages and conditions for employees.

The legal issues before the court were whether the enterprise agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Key concerns included whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms, whether it adequately protected employees' rights and interests, and whether it adhered to the process for approving enterprise agreements as stipulated in the Act.

The court meticulously examined the agreement to determine if it met the statutory criteria. It found that the agreement was procedurally valid, having been made following proper consultation and negotiation processes. The court also considered the economic and social context, including the impact on employees and the broader industry. Ultimately, the court concluded that the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms, protected employees' interests, and was in compliance with the legislative requirements. Consequently, the court approved the Sebking Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.