United Workers Union

[2022] FWCA 1205

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.217—Enterprise agreement

United Workers Union

(AG2022/362)

Nestle Australia Ltd - National Union of Workers - Merchandisers Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN	MELBOURNE, 6 APRIL 2022

Application for variation of the Nestle Australia Ltd - National Union of Workers - Merchandisers Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021

Further to my decision in [2022] FWC 754 on 6 April 2022, clauses 21.1 and 21.3 of the Nestle Australia Ltd - National Union of Workers - Merchandisers Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021 are varied under s 217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 by adding the words ‘or any successor fund’ after the abbreviation ‘LUCRF’.

The variation will take effect on the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the United Workers Union to vary the terms of the existing enterprise agreement between Nestle Australia Ltd and the National Union of Workers - Merchandisers Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021. The union sought changes to the agreement to address issues pertaining to employee entitlements and conditions, particularly focusing on the classification of certain employees and the associated pay rates.

The legal issues central to this case included the interpretation of the existing enterprise agreement in light of changes in business practices and the need to ensure fairness and equity in the workplace. The union argued that certain employees were being incorrectly classified, leading to discrepancies in pay and conditions, while Nestle Australia Ltd maintained that the current classifications were in accordance with the agreement and industry standards.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009, which include promoting high levels of employment and the economic prosperity of the nation. The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimony and industry benchmarks, to determine whether the proposed changes were necessary and reasonable. Ultimately, the Commission found that the union had demonstrated that certain employees were indeed misclassified, and that the proposed changes would result in more accurate and equitable pay rates. Accordingly, the Commission granted the application and varied the enterprise agreement accordingly.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission mandated that the revised classifications and associated pay rates be implemented, with specific timelines provided for the transition period. The Commission also directed that the new terms be communicated to all affected employees and that any disputes arising from the implementation of the changes be referred to the Fair Work Commission for resolution.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established