DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Superior Food Group t/a Superior Food Services
(AG2015/7440)

SFS FOOD SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Storage services
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 14 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the SFS Food Services Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SFS Food Services Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Superior Food Group t/a Superior Food Services. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The National Union of Workers 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] The Agreement was approved on 14 December 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 21 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by the Superior Food Group, trading as Superior Food Services, for the approval of the SFS Food Services Enterprise Agreement 2015. The applicant sought the agreement's approval under section 232 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandates that the Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement if it is satisfied that the agreement meets the requirements of the Act. The application was contested by the Australian Services Union, representing the employees, who argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employee interests and did not meet the requirements for approval.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. The Commission considered whether the agreement provided for the fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees, including wages, hours of work, leave entitlements and other conditions. The Commission also considered whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the applicant and the union, as required by section 227 of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The Commission determined that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees and that the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a range of benefits for employees, including wage increases, improved leave entitlements and other conditions. The Commission also found that the agreement had been negotiated in good faith and that the union had provided meaningful input into the negotiation process.

The Fair Work Commission approved the SFS Food Services Enterprise Agreement 2015. The Commission determined that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees and that it had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. The Commission's decision provides guidance for employers and unions on the requirements for an enterprise agreement to be approved under the Fair Work Act.

Superior Food Group t/a Superior Food Services

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established