United Workers Union

[2022] FWCA 1203

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.217—Enterprise agreement

United Workers Union

(AG2022/360)

Nestle (Broadford) – United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2021

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

Application for variation of the Nestle (Broadford) – United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2021

Further to my decision in [2022] FWC 754 on 6 April 2022, clause 23.2 of the Nestle (Broadford) – United Workers Union Enterprise Agreement 2021 is 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 applicant, United Workers Union, sought to vary the 2021 Enterprise Agreement between Nestle (Broadford) and the union. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union argued that the existing agreement had become less favourable due to changes in market conditions and cost of living adjustments. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had established sufficient grounds to warrant a variation of the agreement and whether the proposed changes were fair and reasonable.

The Commission considered the economic and social context, including inflation rates and changes in the cost of living, as well as the employer's financial position and ability to meet the union's requests. The union presented evidence of the increased cost of living and the impact on their members, while the employer argued that the proposed changes would result in significant additional costs and could potentially lead to job losses. After examining the evidence, the Commission determined that while the union had demonstrated a need for adjustments due to economic factors, the proposed changes were not entirely fair and reasonable given the employer's financial constraints.

Ultimately, the Commission approved a modified version of the union's application, which included some of the requested changes but with reduced monetary amounts. This outcome balanced the union's need for adjustments with the employer's capacity to absorb additional costs. The Commission's decision provided a compromise that addressed the union's concerns to a degree while also safeguarding the employer's financial interests. The Fair Work Commission ordered the variation of the Enterprise Agreement in accordance with the modified terms agreed upon.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established