Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd T/A Van Hessen

Case [2021] FWCA 3476


[2021] FWCA 3476
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd T/A Van Hessen
(AG2021/5385)

VAN HESSEN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES’ UNION VICTORIAN MEAT PROCESSING AGREEMENT 2021

Meat Industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 16 JUNE 2021

Application for approval of the Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union Victorian Meat Processing Agreement 2021.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union Victorian Meat Processing Agreement 2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd T/A Van Hessen. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] Question 18 of the Form F17 indicates that the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (the NERR) was provided to employees twice. Once on the 4 February 2020 and again on 17 November 2020. The NERR also notes the date it was subsequently placed on the noticeboard in the staff lunchroom, contrary to the requirements of s.174(1A) of the Act. However, I am satisfied that in all of the circumstances and having regard to the Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Pty Limited T/A RMAX Rigid Cellular Plastics & Others 1, this constitutes a minor procedural or technical error for the purpose of s.188(2)(a). Further, I am satisfied that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to be disadvantaged by the error.

[5] I note that several clauses of the Agreement may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards. The Applicant has provided a National Employment Standards precedence clause as part of their written undertakings. I am consequently satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail.

[6] The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 23 June 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 July 2024.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   [2019] FWCFB 318.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE511872  PR730784>

Details
AGLC
Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd T/A Van Hessen [2021] FWCA 3476
Case
[2021] FWCA 3476
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Van Hessen Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Van Hessen, brought an application for approval of a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union, representing the employees, supported the application. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and if it was appropriately registered.

The Commission assessed the agreement based on the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. It considered the fairness of the terms and conditions, the process by which the agreement was made, and whether it met the standards for simplicity, clarity, and accessibility. The Commission also examined whether the agreement appropriately balanced the interests of both employers and employees, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for registration. The application was supported by evidence from both parties, including submissions and documentation regarding the negotiation process and the content of the agreement.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the Commission found that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and that it met all the necessary criteria for approval and registration under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted the balanced nature of the agreement, the fair process by which it was negotiated, and its compliance with the legal requirements. The Commission approved the agreement and ordered its registration.

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.