[2016] FWCA 624

The document previously published on 29 January 2016 with the above code has been amended to correct the Agreement reference from AE417627 to AE413209.

Associate to Deputy President Gooley

Dated 16 February 2016

[2016] FWCA 624

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.217 - Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd T/A Toyota Motor Corporation Australia
(AG2015/7815)

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA (TMCA) WORKPLACE AGREEMENT (PORT MELBOURNE, SYDNEY AND REGIONS) 2015

Vehicle industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 29 JANUARY 2016

Application for variation of the Toyota Motor Corporation Australia (TMCA) Workplace Agreement (Port Melbourne, Sydney and Regions) 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Toyota Motor Corporation Australia (TMCA) Workplace Agreement (Port Melbourne, Sydney and Regions) 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to section 217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd T/A Toyota Motor Corporation Australia. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I have examined the material provided by Toyota Motor Corporation in support of its application, together with the consent of the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia – Electrical, Energy and Services Division, the National Union of Workers and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union and am satisfied that it includes all the relevant information which would be necessary to support the variation of the Agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty.

[3] The application seeks to vary the following:

To amend the glossary of the Agreement as follows:

(a) Replace the paragraph reading:

“Asset Protection Employees

Employees undertaking Asset protection duties in Altona and Port Melbourne sites. These include Fire Officers, Asset Protection Senior Officer and Officer.”

With:

“Asset Protection Employees

Employees undertaking Asset protection duties in Altona and Port Melbourne, Sydney sites. These include Fire Officers, Asset Protection Senior Officer and Officer.”

(b) Replace the paragraph reading:

“Business Structure Change

Significant organisational change at the Altona site, including restructuring and outsourcing. It does not include operational and Kaizen-related matters covered elsewhere in this Agreement (unless they have a significant affect on Employees).”

With:

“Business Structure Change

Significant organisational change at the TMCA sites, including restructuring and outsourcing. It does not include operational and Kaizen-related matters covered elsewhere in this Agreement (unless they have a significant adverse affect on Employees).”

“Call Back

An employee recalled to work overtime after completing their normal shift and leaving the Altona site.”

With:

“Call Back

An employee recalled to work overtime after completing their normal shift and leaving the TMCA Site.”

(d) Replace the paragraph reading:

“Company Fleet

TMCA’s company fleet site located at 28 Westgate Drive, Altona North, Victoria.”

With:

“Company Fleet

TMCA’s company fleet site located at 28 Westgate Drive, Port Melbourne, Sydney and Regions North, Victoria.”

(e) Replace the paragraph reading:

“Port Melbourne

TMCA’s site at Port Melbourne, Victoria.”

With:

“Port Melbourne, Sydney and Regions

TMCA’s site at Port Melbourne (Vic), Woolooware Bay (NSW) Acacia Ridge and Townsville Qld) Darwin (NT) Adelaide (SA)”

(f) Replace the paragraph reading:

“Union

The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union.”

With:

“Union

The following Unions and their officers who have been represented by the FVIU negotiating this Agreement. The Union parties to this Agreement shall be collectively referred to as the ‘Unions’:

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

Communication, Electrical, and Plumbing Union of Australia (in respect of those members of the electrical division employed by Toyota)

National Union of Workers (in respect of the Warehousing in Brisbane)

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia

Australian Services Union (in respect of those members of the Administrative and Clerical Division employed by Toyota).”

(g) Insert paragraph reading:

“PDR

Performance and Development Review (formerly Performance Management System).”

[4] A copy of the varied Agreement is attached to this Decision and the variation operates from 5 February 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (TMCA) sought a variation of the Toyota Motor Corporation Australia (Port Melbourne, Sydney and Regions) 2015 Workplace Agreement through the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The application was made under section 221 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was contested by the United Voice union. The primary dispute centred on the classification of certain roles within TMCA, specifically whether they should be classified as 'Salesperson' or 'Sales Consultant'. This classification had significant implications for wages, conditions, and the interpretation of various provisions within the agreement.

The legal issues that the FWC was required to decide involved the interpretation of the Workplace Agreement and the application of the Fair Work Act. The key issue was whether the roles in question should be classified as Salesperson or Sales Consultant, with each classification carrying different remuneration and conditions. The union argued that the roles should be classified as Sales Consultant, which would entitle the employees to higher pay and certain benefits. Conversely, TMCA argued that the roles should be classified as Salesperson, which would result in lower pay and fewer benefits. The FWC had to determine the correct classification based on the terms of the agreement and the evidence presented.

The FWC considered the language of the agreement, the roles and responsibilities of the employees in question, and the broader context in which the agreement was made. It found that the roles in question were more appropriately classified as Salesperson, as they involved a higher level of customer interaction and sales responsibility than what was typically associated with a Sales Consultant. The FWC also considered the historical context of the roles within TMCA and the evidence presented by both parties. Ultimately, the FWC concluded that the roles should be classified as Salesperson, dismissing the union's application for variation.

The FWC's decision was that the roles in question should remain classified as Salesperson, and the application for variation was dismissed. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Workplace Agreement and the evidence presented. The FWC found that the roles met the criteria for Salesperson classification under the agreement and that the union's arguments for reclassification were not supported by the evidence. The decision has implications for the wages and conditions of the employees in question, as well as the broader interpretation of the Workplace Agreement.

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd T/A Toyota Motor Corporation Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established