Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 5534

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7022)

GIPPSLAND FOOD COMPANY - PAKENHAM FACTORY (PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Gippsland Food Company - Pakenham Factory (Production Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Gippsland Food Company - Pakenham Factory (Production Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Simplot Australia Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the Agreement was made. This was due to some difficulties associated with having the Agreement signed by an appropriate signatory. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that it is fair, pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, to extend the time for making the application until the time it was actually made.

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

[4] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] It is also noted in this context that the Union takes issue with the provisions in clause 25 of the Agreement referring to employees employed prior to 30 November 2009, who moved from the Nestlé Group Superfund, receiving an additional 2.8% of their base rate of pay. The Union continues to believe, due to other agreed arrangements, that all employees have this entitlement. It is further noted, however, that the Employer does not agree with the Union’s view.

[6] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Gippsland Food Company - Pakenham Factory (Production Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2012. The application was opposed by the Gippsland Food Workers Union, which raised concerns about various provisions within the proposed agreement. The central issues before the Commission were whether the provisions of the enterprise agreement were compliant with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to pay rates, conditions, and employee representation.

The Commission considered the provisions of the enterprise agreement in light of the statutory requirements. It evaluated whether the agreement met the criteria for "better off overall" as stipulated by the Fair Work Act. The Commission also examined the fairness of the proposed terms and conditions, including pay rates and working conditions, to ensure they did not undermine the rights of the employees. The Gippsland Food Workers Union argued that certain clauses were unfair and did not provide adequate protections for employees. However, the Commission found that the proposed agreement did not contain provisions that would be considered unfair, nor did it contravene any statutory provisions. The Commission concluded that the proposed agreement provided for a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions for the employees.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Gippsland Food Company - Pakenham Factory (Production Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2012, determining that it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The decision was made on the basis that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for the employees, and did not contain any unfair provisions. The Commission found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and did not unfairly disadvantage them. The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the enterprise agreement, which would now be binding on the parties from the effective date as specified in the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established