UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union

[2013] FWC 4279

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

UGL Operations & Maintenance Pty Ltd
v
The Australian Workers’ Union; and
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
(C2013/3795)

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 4 JULY 2013

Alleged dispute concerning overtime pay, severance benefits and meal breaks for casual employees.

[1] This decision relates to an application by UGL Operations & Maintenance Pty Ltd (the Applicant) pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to a dispute concerning overtime pay, severance benefits and meal breaks for casual employees. The respondents to the application are The Australian Workers’ Union (the AWU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (together, the Respondents).

[2] The dispute concerns the application of the UGL Resources Pty Ltd Shell Geelong Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2011 [AE886392] (the Agreement), in particular clause 1.8.12, no industrial action for the term of the Agreement; clauses 3.1.3(vi) and 4.1.5, applicable pay for casuals on overtime; clause 3.9, applicable severance benefits for casuals, and clause 4.1.7, meal breaks.

[3] The Applicant seeks relief, by way of arbitration, that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) declare that:

(i) casual loading is not included in the calculation of overtime under the Agreement;

(ii) casual employees are not entitled to severance payments under the Agreement;

(iii) employees do not receive a 20 minute paid meal break under the Agreement; and

(iv) the Commission affirms that no industrial action may be taken by the persons covered by the Agreement for the remainder of its term over these or any other issues.

[4] Before the application was made under s.739 of the Act, a number of private conferences were chaired by the Commission in order to try and resolve the issues between the parties. However, they proved to be unsuccessful; subsequently, an application under s.739 of the Act was made to have those matters arbitrated.

[5] The matter was set down for hearing on Wednesday 12 June 2013. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr C Gianatti sought permission to represent the Applicant and Mr S Moore sought permission to represent the Respondents. Both parties were given permission to appear. Once permission had been granted the Commission, at PN5 of transcript, made the following comment:

“COMMISSIONER: I have the submissions of both parties and witness statements and I’ve read the material. Just in regards to the submissions by the AMWU - on the part of the unions, sorry, point 34, “Meal break dispute”, it says, “The Respondents do not contest paragraphs 42, 43 of the UGL submissions dated 30 April 2013”. Does that mean they concede on the issue of the meal break?

MR MOORE: Can I have a moment, Commissioner? Yes, that’s the effect of what’s set out there, Commissioner.”

[6] As the Respondents have conceded that the employees are not entitled to…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Ltd and the Australian Workers' Union was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around claims by the union that casual employees of UGL were not receiving adequate overtime pay, severance benefits, and proper meal breaks as required by their employment conditions. The union argued that the company had failed to comply with specific provisions of the relevant enterprise agreement and sought compensation and other remedies for the affected employees.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether UGL had breached the enterprise agreement by not paying overtime, severance benefits, and not allowing proper meal breaks for its casual employees. The Commission had to determine the correct interpretation of the enterprise agreement, the scope of UGL's obligations under it, and whether the union's claims were substantiated by the evidence presented.

In its decision, the Commission found that UGL had indeed breached the enterprise agreement by not providing the required overtime pay, severance benefits, and meal breaks to its casual employees. The Commission held that the terms of the enterprise agreement were clear and unambiguous, and UGL had failed to comply with them. The Commission ordered UGL to pay the affected employees the outstanding overtime pay, severance benefits, and compensate them for the meal breaks that were not provided. Additionally, the Commission directed UGL to implement measures to ensure compliance with the enterprise agreement in the future.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was a clear victory for the Australian Workers' Union and a significant setback for UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Ltd. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of employers adhering to the terms of enterprise agreements and ensuring that their employees are treated fairly and in accordance with the law. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder to all employers of the need to comply with their obligations under enterprise agreements and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established