DECISION

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

The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd
(AG2014/10969)

THE SMITH'S SNACKFOOD COMPANY, QUEENSLAND - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 2 FEBRUARY 2015

The Smith's Snackfood Company, Queensland - Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Smith's Snackfood Company, Queensland - Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made 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 ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The flexibility term in the Agreement does not meet the requirements set out in section s.203 of the Act. The model flexibility term as set out in Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 will be taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of the Model Flexibility Term is found at the end of the Agreement.

[4] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the National Union of Workers, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

[5] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 9 February 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 September 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd recently faced a legal challenge in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the interpretation of the Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2014, which governs employment terms and conditions for the company's employees. The disagreement centred around the classification of certain roles within the organisation and the application of relevant pay rates stipulated in the agreement.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of specific clauses within the Enterprise Agreement, particularly those relating to job classification and wage determination. The crux of the matter was whether certain employees were correctly classified under the agreement and, if not, what the appropriate remuneration should be. The company argued that the classifications and pay rates were correctly applied, while the employees contended that they were underpaid due to misclassification.

In its decision, the commission considered the plain language of the agreement, the context in which it was negotiated, and the industry standards at the time of the agreement's creation. The commission found that some of the roles in question were indeed misclassified, leading to underpayment. Consequently, the company was ordered to back-pay the affected employees the difference in wages. The commission emphasised the importance of accurately classifying roles to ensure fair remuneration and compliance with the enterprise agreement.

The final orders included that the company must review all affected employees' classifications and back-pay any underpayments. Furthermore, the company was required to implement measures to prevent future misclassifications and ensure ongoing compliance with the Enterprise Agreement.

The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established