Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWCA 2826

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2024/2550)

SONOCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD MELBOURNE PLANT WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 2024

Graphic Arts
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE	MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2024

Application for approval of the Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd Melbourne Plant Workplace Improvement Agreement 2024

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd Melbourne Plant Workplace Improvement Agreement 2024 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). It has been made by Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd (Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The application was required to be filed within 14 days after it was made on 20 June 2024 in accordance with s 185(3) of the Act. As it was not filed until 9 July 2024, it was filed five days after the expiry of the statutory timeframe. Pursuant to s 185(3)(b), in all the circumstances, I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application.

The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss 186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. For the purposes of the better off overall test, I have had regard to each of the matters in s 193A(2)-(7).

I observe that the following clauses are likely to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). However, noting clause 4.4 of the Agreement, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES:

· Personal/carer’s leave: Clause 15.6 of the Agreement provides that an employee must, as soon as reasonably practicable and during the ordinary hours of the first day or shift of such absence, inform the Employer of their inability to attend for duty and as far as practicable state the nature of the injury, illness or emergency and the estimated duration of their absence. If it is not reasonably practicable to inform the Employer during the ordinary hours of the first day or shift of such absence, an employee must inform the Employer within 24 hours of such absence. This clause may provide a more stringent notice requirement than permitted by s 107(2)(a) of the Act, which provides that the notice must be given to the Employer as soon as practicable (which may be a time after the leave has started).

· Parental Leave: Clause 4.1 of the Agreement incorporates the Graphic Arts General Award 2000. As the pre-reform Award is incorporated, it appears the parental leave entitlements in the pre-reform Award are also incorporated. The pre-reform Award contains some less beneficial entitlements than the NES (such as for concurrent leave).

· Compassionate Leave: Clause 7.2 of the pre-reform Award states employees can use 24 hours of their personal leave as bereavement leave. Additionally, clause 7.2A states employees receive 16 hours of bereavement leave per occasion. Both of the above may not be consistent with the NES.

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 supports the approval of the Agreement and has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s 54 of the Act will operate from 8 August 2024. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

The case involved Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd, which applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of a workplace improvement agreement concerning its Melbourne plant. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with examining the agreement to determine if it facilitated improvements in workplace relations and productivity, while also ensuring that employees' rights and interests were protected.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement provided for genuine improvements in workplace relations and productivity, whether it contained appropriate mechanisms for resolving disputes, and whether it adequately safeguarded employees' rights and interests. Specifically, the Commission had to assess if the agreement's provisions aligned with the objectives of the Fair Work Act, which aims to create a fair and productive workplace environment.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement met the criteria for approval. It concluded that the agreement contained provisions that would lead to genuine improvements in workplace relations and productivity, such as clearer communication channels and more efficient dispute resolution processes. The Commission also noted that the agreement included appropriate safeguards for employees, ensuring that their rights and interests were protected. Consequently, the Commission approved the Workplace Improvement Agreement, recognising its potential to foster a more collaborative and productive workplace environment at the Melbourne plant.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Workplace Improvement Agreement for Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd's Melbourne plant, acknowledging its potential to enhance workplace relations and productivity while protecting employees' rights and interests. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of agreements that balance the needs of employers and employees, promoting a fair and efficient workplace.

Sonoco Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established