Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (No 2)

The case of Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (No 2) involves the employer company Teys, which sought a declaration that certain clauses of an "incentive payment system" for piece-rate remuneration of its employees were not part of, and did not vary, the relevant enterprise agreement. The dispute arose from Teys's argument that the "incentive payment system" clauses were not incorporated into the 2010 EA, and therefore did not form part of the EA. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) argued that the incentive payment system clauses were indeed incorporated into the 2010 EA by clause 3.10.1 of the EA.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the incorporation provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 limited the incorporation of material not in existence at the time of the making of the EA, and whether such incorporation was inconsistent with or repugnant to the scheme of the Fair Work Act for variation of EAs. The court had to consider the role of the Fair Work Commission in approving and varying EAs, and whether it was permissible to read words into section 257 of the Fair Work Act. The court also had to determine if clause 3.10.1 was a "facilitative provision" and how the apparent tension between the Fair Work Act scheme for approval and variation of EAs and the incorporation provisions could be reconciled.

The court found that the incorporation provisions did not limit the incorporation of material not in existence at the time of the making of the EA. It was held that the incorporation of material otherwise than in existence at the time of the making of the EA was not inconsistent with or repugnant to the scheme of the Fair Work Act for variation of EAs. The court considered the Fair Work Commission's supervisory role on approval and variation of EAs, and the permissibility of reading words into section 257 of the Fair Work Act. The court held that clause 3.10.1 was a "facilitative provision" and that the incorporation of the incentive payment system clauses into the 2010 EA was permissible. The court dismissed Teys's application for a declaration that the incentive payment system clauses were not part of, and did not vary, the 2010 EA.

The court's final orders were that the application was dismissed, and unless an application was made for costs within 7 days, there would be no order as to costs.