Urban Appetite Pty Ltd t/a Degani @ Karingal

Case [2017] FWCA 3657


[2017] FWCA 3657
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Urban Appetite Pty Ltd t/a Degani @ Karingal
(AG2017/1789)

MOMILLIONS - HOSPITALITY - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Restaurants

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 11 JULY 2017

Application for approval of the Momillions - Hospitality- Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), filed by Ms Penny Stylianou of Urban Appetite Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) which seeks the approval of the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) of a single enterprise agreement to be known as Momillions - Hospitality- Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’). The Agreement is to cover 26 employees who are engaged in the applicant’s café in Karingal, Victoria. For the purposes of s 186(3) of the Act, I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by this Agreement has been fairly chosen.

[2] The employees were last notified of their representational rights on 20 April 2017 and voting for the Agreement’s approval took place on 12 May 2017. The time limits under s 181(2) of the Act are thereby satisfied. In a ballot, all 19 of the employees who cast a valid vote, agreed to approve the Agreement. The application for approval of the Agreement was lodged on 19 May 2017, thereby satisfying s 185(3) of the Act.

[3] In the Employer’s Declaration in support of the application (Form F17) Ms Penny Stylianou identified the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 as the relevant reference instrument for the purposes of the Better Off Overall Test (the ‘BOOT’). In error, Ms Stylianou hadsaid the agreement provides for no terms which are either more or less beneficial than the reference instrument. This is not correct, as the Agreement provides for rates of pay which are ten per cent higher than the rates of pay in the reference instrument. However, the Agreement does not provide for penalty rates on weekends. At a hearing for the application on 19 June 2017, Ms Stylianou said that penalty rates had been absorbed into the higher hourly rate of pay. She described the café’s operating hours – it opens at 7.30am and closes at 5.30pm Monday to Friday (except Thursday when the café closes at 9pm) and on Saturday and Sunday it closes at 5pm. No employees work solely on weekends. Ms Stylianou said she had undertaken calculations comparing the Agreement with the reference instrument which disclosed that employees were better off under the Agreement. Ms Stylianou provided a copy of these calculations to my Chambers on 28 June 2017. The calculations do show employees are better off overall under the Agreement, albeit only marginally. On balance, I am satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT.

[4] Also during the hearing, Ms Stylianou outlined the main features of the Agreement and submitted that all of the legislative requirements for approval of the Agreement have been satisfied and the Agreement should be approved by the Commission. I raised with Ms Stylianou some potential issues in relation to clauses 3.2 Wages, 6.1.2 Notice of Termination and 7.2.1 Consultative term. In particular, clause 3.2 provides no rate of pay for Grade 3 employees; clause 6.1.2 does not provide for an additional week of notice for an employee who has at least two years service and who is over 45 years old and clause 7.2.1 is not activated in circumstances where the employer decides to change an employee’s regular hours of work or roster. Ms Stylianou offered to provide an undertaking to remedy each of these omissions, which she did on 30 June 2017. Pursuant to s 191(1) of the Act, the undertaking is taken to be a term of the Agreement. A copy of this undertaking is attached to the Agreement and marked as ‘Annexure A’. The Agreement provides for the mandatory flexibility terms at clause 7.1 and a disputes resolution procedure at clause 2.3 provides for conciliation and arbitration by the Commission.

[5] Having heard the applicant’s submissions and upon reviewing the terms of the preapproval process documentation, the Agreement itself and the undertakings, I am satisfied that all of the requirements of the Act, in ss180, 186, 187, 190 and 191, in so far as relevant to this application, have been met. Accordingly, I approve a single enterprise agreement known as the Momillions - Hospitality- Enterprise Agreement 2016. Pursuant to s 54 of the Act, the Agreement shall operate from 11 July 2017 and have a nominal expiry date 11 July 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, AE424888  PR594461>

Details
AGLC
Urban Appetite Pty Ltd t/a Degani @ Karingal [2017] FWCA 3657
Case
[2017] FWCA 3657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Urban Appetite Pty Ltd, trading as Degani @ Karingal, sought approval of the Momillions - Hospitality Enterprise Agreement 2016. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement provided for the employees’ terms and conditions in a manner that met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was a genuine enterprise agreement, fairly representing the interests of the employees and meeting the procedural requirements for approval.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement was genuinely an enterprise agreement. It was made by employers and employees in good faith and covered a single enterprise. The Commission noted the procedural fairness of the agreement, including the consultation process and the majority support from the employees. The agreement also addressed various terms and conditions of employment, including wages, hours, and leave entitlements, in a manner that was fair and reasonable. The Commission concluded that the agreement met all legislative requirements and should be approved.

Accordingly, the Fair Work Commission approved the Momillions - Hospitality Enterprise Agreement 2016. The approval ensures that the terms and conditions set out in the agreement are applicable to the employees, providing a framework for their employment within the enterprise. This decision reinforces the importance of genuine collective bargaining and the procedural integrity required in the formation of enterprise agreements under Australian labour law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.