[2014] FWC 2449 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2014/4178) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decisions dated 18 September 2014 [[2014] FWCFB 5643] and 19 December 2014 [[2014] FWCFB 8589] respectively for result of appeals.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd
(AG2013/8000)

TEYS AUSTRALIA BEENLEIGH PTY LTD PRODUCTION DEPARTMENTS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY	BRISBANE, 10 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd Production Departments Enterprise Agreement 2013.

BACKGROUND

[1] This Decision concerns an application by Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd (Teys) under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for approval of the Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd Production Departments Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). 1The application was made on 8 August 2013. The application was opposed by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU). Following a hearing on 27 September 2013, I approved the Agreement and issued an approval Decision.2 On 4 October 2013, I issued a Decision setting out my reasons for approving the Agreement.3

[2] The AMIEU appealed against the Decision to approve the Agreement. On 4 March 2014, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found that in deciding to approve the Agreement I applied an erroneous test with respect to the meaning of the expression “will be covered” in s.181(1) of the Act and in having regard to anteriorly derived notions of fairness in construing the coverage clause of the Agreement. 4 On 25 March 2014, an Order was issued quashing the Decision and approval Decision and the Full Bench remitted AG2013/8000 to me to deal with in accordance with its Decision.

[3] In their submissions in the present proceedings, the parties also referred to their submissions in the hearing on 27 September 2013. I have taken all of those submissions into account in considering the matters remitted to me by the Full Bench. I have also had regard to the submissions of the parties in the appeal.

[4] The factual background can be briefly stated. In July 2013, following protracted negotiations for an enterprise agreement, Teys put a proposed agreement to a ballot of employees notwithstanding the opposition of the AMIEU and some members who were bargaining representatives in the negotiations. The AMIEU ran a “no” case.

[5] A ballot was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission on 1 and 2 August 2013 and a declaration of results issued on 5 August stated that:

● The total amount of eligible voters was 792
● There were 711 ballot papers issued including two spoilt/duplicate papers
● 359 employees voted “yes”
● 343 employees voted “no”
● 7 employees cast an informal vote

[6] The AMIEU asserted that there were irregularities associated with the approval of the Agreement as follows:

● Ineligible employees were included in the roll of voters;
● Employees were not provided with the access period required…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FWC 2449
Decision Date: 10 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd recently faced a legal dispute concerning the approval of its 2013 Production Departments Enterprise Agreement. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), where the primary issue was whether the agreement met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The company sought the FWC’s approval of the agreement, which outlined the terms and conditions of employment for its production department staff. The legal issues before the FWC revolved around the fairness and compliance of the agreement with the legislative framework. Key concerns included whether the agreement adequately covered minimum entitlements, provided for lawful variations, and allowed for proper dispute resolution mechanisms. The company argued that the agreement was fair and appropriate, while the opposing party raised concerns about specific provisions that could potentially undermine employee rights.

The FWC evaluated the agreement against the statutory criteria set out in the Fair Work Act, focusing on whether the agreement achieved a better outcome for the employees and whether it was made in good faith. The Commission examined the terms of the agreement, including the provisions related to wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions. It also considered the bargaining power of the parties and whether the agreement was reached through genuine negotiations. After a thorough review, the FWC found that the agreement was largely compliant with the requirements of the Act. However, it identified certain provisions that needed modification to ensure they met the necessary standards of fairness and compliance. The FWC subsequently ordered amendments to these provisions before granting final approval.

In conclusion, the FWC approved the Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd Production Departments Enterprise Agreement 2013, subject to certain modifications. The Commission determined that, with the required changes, the agreement would better protect the rights and interests of the employees while maintaining a fair balance with the employer's needs. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements adhere to the legislative standards designed to protect both employers and employees. The final orders required the company to implement the specified amendments within a set timeframe, after which the agreement would be formally approved.

Orders