The Langham Melbourne Hotel

Case [2014] FWCA 4428


[2014] FWCA 4428

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

The Langham Melbourne Hotel
(AG2014/6386)

THE LANGHAM HOTEL MELBOURNE - UNITED VOICE AGREEMENT 2013

Hospitality industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 7 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Langham Hotel Melbourne - United Voice Agreement 2013.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Southgate Hotel Management Pty Ltd t/as The Langham Melbourne (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as the Langham Hotel Melbourne – United Voice Agreement 2013 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement was negotiated with United Voice (the ‘Union’) and is to cover 438 employees, except for administration staff, department and senior managers, who are engaged in a variety of hospitality positions at the applicant’s hotel. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 10 September 2012, and voting for the Agreement’s approval commenced on 27 May 2014 and concluded on 30 May 2014. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a vote, 254 of the 263 employees who cast a valid vote agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 10 June 2014, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms K Peatling, Human Resources Manager,identified the Hospitality Industry (General) Award [MA000009] 2010 and the Hospitality Industry – Accommodation, Hotels, Resorts and Gaming Award 1998 [AP783479] as the relevant reference instruments for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). Ms Peatlingsaid that the Agreement provides for a number of conditions that are in excess of, or are more beneficial than the terms of the relevant reference instruments and that there are no less beneficial terms. The Agreement provides for the provision of income protection insurance where it is not provided for by the nominated industry super fund, paid parental leave for more than 2 years of service, an additional day’s compassionate leave and the option to cash out annual leave. Rates of pay are to be adjusted as per the Schedule 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix 1 of the Agreement, and are applied on 1 April and 1 October 2013 retrospectively and 1 October 2014. I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility and consultation terms at clauses 16.1 and 9 respectively, and a dispute resolution procedure at clause 10 provides for mediation, conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[4] At a hearing of the application on 1 July 2014, Ms Peatling,appeared with Ms M Reynolds, Human Resources Advisorfor the applicant and Mr D Robson for the Union. The Union had filed a Declaration in relation to the application (Form 18) supporting the approval of the Agreement and giving notice that it wishes to be covered by the Agreement (s 183). For the purposes of s 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Union is to be covered by the Agreement. Ms Peatling outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. Mr Robson supported the applicant’s submissions and, in particular, agreed the Agreement met the BOOT.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation and the Agreement itself, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular ss 180, 186, 187 and 188, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Langham Hotel Melbourne – United Voice Agreement 2013.Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 8 July 2014 and have a nominal expiry date of 1 October 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Price code G, AE408906  PR552705

Details
AGLC
The Langham Melbourne Hotel [2014] FWCA 4428
Case
[2014] FWCA 4428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Langham Melbourne Hotel applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of a new enterprise agreement. The agreement, titled "United Voice Agreement 2013," was intended to regulate the employment terms and conditions of certain employees at the hotel. The respondents, represented by United Voice, opposed the application on the grounds that the agreement did not adequately address several issues, including pay rates, penalty rates, and other employment terms.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval and if it complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. This included assessing whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether it provided for a fair and efficient workplace. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was procedurally and substantively compliant with the relevant legislation.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the agreement was made in good faith and contained provisions that were fair and efficient for the employees and the employer. The Commission noted that while the respondents had raised several concerns, these did not amount to procedural flaws or substantive unfairness in the agreement. Consequently, the Commission approved the United Voice Agreement 2013, stating that it met all necessary criteria for a new enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the approval of the Langham Hotel Melbourne - United Voice Agreement 2013, effective from the date of the decision. This decision concluded the application process and established the terms and conditions for the relevant employees as outlined in the agreement.

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.