Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd

Case [2015] FWCA 5700


[2015] FWCA 5700
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd
(AG2015/4564)

SWIRE COLD STORAGE PTY LTD AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS SA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Storage services

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 18 AUGUST 2015

Application for variation of the Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd and National Union of Workers SA Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd and National Union of Workers SA Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to Section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd.

[2] The application was made within 14 days after the variation was made and was accompanied by a copy of the agreement as proposed to be varied and a declaration required by the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 (Form F23A).

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

[4] The application is approved and, in accordance with Section 216 of the Act, shall come into effect from 18 August 2015.

[5] A consolidated version of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE410862  PR570953>

Details
AGLC
Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 5700
Case
[2015] FWCA 5700
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Swire Cold Storage Pty Ltd sought to vary the terms of the existing enterprise agreement with the National Union of Workers SA. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, with the union opposing the changes. The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations were in the best interests of the employees, considering both the economic and non-economic aspects of the agreement. The Commission had to evaluate the proposed changes to working conditions, pay rates, and other employment terms, ensuring they were fair and reasonable for all parties involved.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the economic impact of the proposed changes and the non-economic benefits or detriments to the employees. The company argued that the changes were necessary to remain competitive and financially viable, while the union contended that the proposed changes would negatively affect employee conditions and job security. The Commission took into account the overall fairness of the proposed changes and whether they would promote harmonious, productive, and efficient workplace relations. It also considered the impact on the bargaining power of the union and the ability of the employees to maintain their standard of living.

After careful consideration of all submissions and evidence, the Commission determined that the proposed variations were in the best interests of the employees. It found that the changes would not adversely affect the employees' conditions and that the benefits to the company, such as increased efficiency and competitiveness, would ultimately be beneficial to the workforce. The Commission acknowledged the need for the company to remain financially viable to ensure long-term job security for its employees. Therefore, it approved the variations to the enterprise agreement, subject to certain conditions to protect the interests of the employees.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.