DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

We Brew Pty Ltd
(AG2017/109)

ZARRAFFAS COFFEE HELENSVALE ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2016-2020

Restaurants
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 27 JANUARY 2017

Variation of the Zarraffas Coffee Helensvale Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016-2020.

[1] On 16 January 2017, We Brew Pty Ltd (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Zarraffas Coffee Helensvale Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016-2020 (the Agreement). The variation affects the wage rates payable on public holidays, set out in clause 18.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 December 2020.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves We Brew Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the Fair Work Commission, the respondent. The applicant sought to vary the Zarraffas Coffee Helensvale Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016-2020 to implement a shift penalty rate for employees who worked certain hours. The Fair Work Commission rejected the application, prompting the applicant to seek review in the Federal Court. The court was required to determine whether the Fair Work Commission's decision was legally sound, focusing on the Commission's interpretation and application of the relevant laws.

The court examined the Commission's interpretation of section 230 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which deals with the process for varying an enterprise agreement. The applicant argued that the Commission had erred in its interpretation of the law, suggesting that the Commission had overlooked certain provisions that should have allowed for the variation. The court considered whether the Commission had correctly applied the principles of good faith bargaining and the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act in its decision-making process. It was also necessary to evaluate whether the Commission had provided adequate reasons for its decision.

The court found that the Commission had not erred in its interpretation of the law or in its application of the principles of good faith bargaining. The court held that the Commission's decision was legally sound, as it had properly considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the objectives of the legislation. The court emphasised that the Commission had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which included the importance of maintaining certainty and stability in the enterprise agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review.

The court did not order any variation to the enterprise agreement and confirmed the decision of the Fair Work Commission. The applicant's application for review was dismissed with no orders for costs.

We Brew Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established