St Mary's Hogs Pty Ltd t/as Hogs Breath Cafe St Mary's Summary

[2014] FWCA 662

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

St Mary's Hogs Pty Ltd t/as Hogs Breath Cafe St Mary's
(AG2014/47)

ST MARY'S HOGS PTY LTD - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2017

Restaurants
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS	SYDNEY, 25 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the St Mary's Hogs Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by St Mary’s Hogs Pty Ltd t/as Hogs Breath Cafe St Mary’s (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the St Mary’s Hogs Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement is to cover 37 employees who are employed at the applicant’s restaurant in St Mary’s, New South Wales. It does not cover Restaurant Managers. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 31 October 2013, and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 7 December 2013. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a secret ballot, 14 of the 25 employees who voted, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 13 January 2014. While the application was lodged outside the statutory time limit set out in s 185(3)(a), I consider it fair in all the circumstances to extend the period for the application to be made to 13 January 2014.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Mr S Ahmed, Director, identified the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 [MA000119] and the Restaurants, &c., Employees (State) Award [AN120468] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Mr Ahmedsaid that the Agreement provides for some terms and conditions that are less beneficial than those under the reference instruments, including the removal of weekend penalty rates and a number of allowances. However, these have been ‘loaded’ into higher base rates of pay. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 7.1 and 7.3 respectively, and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 2.4 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 22 January 2014, Mr C Agnew, Solicitorappeared with Mr S Ahmed for the applicant. Mr Agnew outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. He explained that the majority of the restaurant’s business is done on Saturday and Friday evenings. The calculations undertaken in comparing the loaded rates of pay with the rates of pay and penalty rates under the Awards had been performed with a typical Hog’s Breath Cafe roster in mind. Mr Agnew also offered to provide undertakings bringing forward the first increase of 3% in rates of pay to 1 July 2014. The Agreement also provides for further increases of 3% on 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016. Pursuant to s 191(1) of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of this undertaking is attached to the Agreement and marked as ‘Annexure A’.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187, 188, 190 and 191 in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the St Mary’s Hogs Pty Ltd - Enterprise Agreement 2013-2017. Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 29 January 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case before the Fair Work Commission was brought by St Mary’s Hogs Pty Ltd, trading as Hogs Breath Cafe St Mary’s, seeking approval of an Enterprise Agreement for the period 2013-2017. The agreement was proposed by the employer and was intended to govern the employment conditions of certain workers employed at the cafe. The main issues for the Commission to consider included whether the agreement contained the necessary mandatory terms, whether it complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if it had been genuinely agreed upon by the employees. The Commission was also required to assess whether the agreement would have a detrimental effect on the employees it was intended to cover.

In evaluating the agreement, the Commission considered the fairness of the terms and conditions, the process by which the agreement was reached, and whether there were any breaches of the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and that it contained all the necessary mandatory terms. The Commission also concluded that the process of reaching the agreement was appropriate and that the agreement did not have a detrimental effect on the employees.

Following this analysis, the Fair Work Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement for the period 2013-2017, finding that it met all legal requirements and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission certified the agreement as meeting the criteria for approval, ensuring that it would govern the employment conditions of the relevant workers for the specified period. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the agreement's content, the negotiation process, and the implications for the employees.

St Mary's Hogs Pty Ltd t/as Hogs Breath Cafe St Mary's

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established