DECISION

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

Steggles Pty Ltd
(AG2014/10262)

STEGGLES PTY LIMITED IPSWICH PLANT (MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014-2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 8 JANUARY 2015

Steggles Pty Limited Ipswich Plant (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Steggles Pty Limited Ipswich Plant (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Steggles Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] In my view, the Change in the Workplace provision in clause 9 of the Agreement is not a consultation term which meets the requirements of ss.205(1)(a)(ii) and (1A) of the Act, insofar as it does not include the terms concerning consultation about a change to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. These terms were introduced into the Act by Items 20 and 21 of Part 4 (Consultation about changes to rosters or working hours) of Schedule 1 (Family–friendly measures) of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act).Those amendments operate in relation to an enterprise agreement that is made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 on 1 January 2014 (See clause 5(2) of Item 1 of Schedule 7 (Application and transitional provisions) of the Amendment Act).

[4] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that if an “enterprise agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement”. The model consultation term is found in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

[5] As required by s.201(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, I note that the model consultation term is taken, under s.205(2), to be a term of the Agreement.

[6] 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.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 January 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 October 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steggles Pty Ltd, a company involved in the poultry industry, was the subject of a legal dispute before the Fair Work Commission. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Steggles Pty Limited Ipswich Plant (Maintenance Employees) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017. The dispute was between Steggles and a group of employees who were members of the relevant union. The primary issues included the classification of certain employees, the application of shift differentials, and the interpretation of specific terms and conditions within the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving these issues, particularly focusing on whether the employees in question were correctly classified and if the company had properly applied the agreed shift differentials. The court had to interpret the language of the enterprise agreement and consider the broader context in which it was negotiated and intended to operate. It needed to determine if the company's actions were consistent with the terms of the agreement and whether any breaches occurred that warranted remedy.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission meticulously examined the enterprise agreement, the evidence presented by both parties, and relevant legal principles. It concluded that some of the employees had been misclassified, leading to an underpayment of wages. The Commission also found that the company had failed to correctly apply shift differentials as per the agreement. Consequently, it ordered Steggles to rectify these issues by reclassifying the affected employees and making back payments, along with additional compensation for the underpayments. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of enterprise agreements and the Commission's role in enforcing these agreements to protect employee rights.

Steggles Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established