The Australian Workers’ Union

[2013] FWCA 3656

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

The Australian Workers’ Union
(AG2013/1194)

BITU-MILL SERVICES PTY LTD (ASPHALT DIVISION) A.W.U VICTORIA ASPHALT AGREEMENT 2012 TO 2015

Asphalt industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 7 JUNE 2013

Application for variation of the Bitu-Mill Services Pty Ltd (Asphalt Division) A.W.U. Victoria Asphalt Agreement 2012 to 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Bitu-Mill Services Pty Ltd (Asphalt Division) A.W.U. Victoria Asphalt Agreement 2012 to 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU).

[2] The variations to the Agreement are annexed to this decision.

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

[4] The application is approved and, in accordance with s.216 of the Act, shall come into effect from 7 June 2013.

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

COMMISSIONER

ANNEXURE A

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a variation of the Bitu-Mill Services Pty Ltd (Asphalt Division) A.W.U. Victoria Asphalt Agreement 2012 to 2015. The Union sought an amendment to the definition of “wages” to include a percentage of the annual bonus paid to employees. The dispute arose from a disagreement between the Union and the employer over the inclusion of a certain percentage of the annual bonus within the term “wages” as defined in the Agreement.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the term “wages” in the Agreement should be interpreted to include a portion of the annual bonus paid to employees. The Union argued that the term “wages” should be broadly construed to encompass not only regular pay but also the annual bonus. The employer contended that the term “wages” should be narrowly construed, excluding any portion of the annual bonus.

The FWC found that the term “wages” in the Agreement should be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary and natural meaning. The Commission held that the term “wages” did not include any portion of the annual bonus, as the bonus was a separate payment distinct from regular wages. The FWC considered the ordinary meaning of the term “wages” and the context in which it was used in the Agreement. The Commission concluded that the term “wages” was not intended to include any part of the annual bonus and that the Agreement should be interpreted in a manner consistent with this understanding.

The FWC dismissed the Union’s application for a variation of the Agreement. The Commission ordered that the term “wages” in the Agreement should be interpreted to exclude any portion of the annual bonus paid to employees. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of the term “wages” in the context of enterprise agreements and reinforces the importance of considering the ordinary meaning of terms used in such agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established