DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Sunfresh Health Pty Ltd
(AG2017/3480)

SUNFRESH HEALTH ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017 VARIATION

Dry cleaning and laundry services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2017

Variation of the Sunfresh Health Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] On 14 August 2017, Sunfresh Health Pty Ltd (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation tothe Sunfresh Health Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The variation affects the title of the Agreement and cls 7(i), 7(j), 12(c), 13(e), 14(b), 14(e)i., 14(g), 17(b)v., 17(d), 18(a), 18(b)i., 20, 25(b) and 44.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 26 July 2021.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Sunfresh Health Pty Ltd, a company involved in the manufacture of health supplements, and its employees, who are represented by the Health Services Union of Australia. The dispute centres on the variation of the Sunfresh Health Enterprise Agreement 2017, which governs the terms and conditions of employment for the employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over industrial disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed changes to the Enterprise Agreement were lawful and procedurally correct. The employees argued that the company had not followed the necessary steps to vary the agreement and that the changes would detrimentally affect their working conditions. The company, on the other hand, maintained that the variations were necessary for the business to remain competitive and that the process followed was appropriate.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the procedural fairness of the variation process and whether the changes were in line with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Commission found that the company had not adequately consulted with the employees and had failed to provide sufficient information to justify the changes. As a result, the proposed variations were not upheld. The Commission emphasised the importance of following the correct procedures when varying an enterprise agreement and the need for good faith negotiations between employers and employees.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed variations to the Sunfresh Health Enterprise Agreement 2017 be dismissed. The company was required to re-engage in good faith negotiations with the employees to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for employers to engage in meaningful consultations with their employees when making changes to the terms and conditions of employment.

Sunfresh Health 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