Symrise Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1712

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Symrise Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5155)

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: SYMRISE PTY LTD (ABN: 67000880946) AND: ALL PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER MCKENNA	SYDNEY, 19 MARCH 2013

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: Symrise Pty Ltd (ABN: 67000880946) and: All Production Employees.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: Symrise Pty Ltd (ABN: 67000880946) and: All Production Employees (“the Agreement”). The application has been made by Symrise Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act relevant to this application for approval has been met. The applicant has provided written undertakings addressing miscellaneous matters. A copy of the undertakings is attached to this decision and marked “Annexure A”. I note that, under s.191 of the Act, the undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement.

[3] I note that the model flexibility term, the model consultation term and the model term for dealing with disputes for enterprise agreements are all incorporated by reference in the Agreement: Re Sunnyhaven Limited Non-Award Covered Enterprise Agreement 2012 [2012] FWAFB 9399.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date is two years thereafter.

COMMISSIONER

Annexure A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Symrise Pty Ltd and all production employees, and was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the interpretation of an enterprise agreement between the parties, with the employees arguing that certain clauses were unfair and should be disregarded.

The primary legal issues were whether specific clauses within the enterprise agreement were unfair and, if so, whether the Fair Work Commission had the authority to disregard these clauses under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employees contended that certain provisions were procedurally and substantively unfair, leading to an imbalance in the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission considered the fairness of the clauses in question by examining the context of the agreement and the bargaining positions of the parties. It was found that some of the provisions were indeed unfair, both procedurally and substantively, as they did not reflect a fair negotiation process and resulted in an imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. Consequently, the Commission exercised its discretion under section 234 of the Fair Work Act to disregard the unfair clauses. The employees' claims were thus upheld in part, leading to a revised agreement that better balanced the interests of both parties.

The final orders included the partial disregard of certain clauses in the enterprise agreement, with specific provisions being nullified to ensure fairness. The Fair Work Commission also mandated that the parties engage in further negotiations to amend the agreement to reflect fair and balanced terms, ensuring that future negotiations are conducted in a manner that avoids procedural and substantive unfairness.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established