DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Yakult Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1320)

THE YAKULT AUSTRALIA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of The Yakult Australia Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as The Yakult Australia Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by The Yakult Australia Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The National Union of Workers 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.

[6] The Agreement was approved on 24 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 1 July 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yakult Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of the Yakult Australia Enterprise Agreement 2016. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine if the agreement included all the mandated terms and conditions, and if it adhered to the procedural fairness and good faith bargaining principles outlined in the Act.

The court examined the comprehensiveness of the agreement, its compliance with the mandated terms and conditions, and whether the negotiation process was conducted in good faith. It assessed whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for both the employer and the employees, and if the negotiation process was transparent and free from coercion or undue influence. The Commission also considered the fairness of the agreement in relation to the bargaining power of the parties and the potential impact on employees.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the Commission found that the Yakult Australia Enterprise Agreement 2016 was compliant with the statutory requirements. It concluded that the agreement contained all the mandated terms and conditions, and that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The Commission approved the agreement, finding it to be fair and reasonable for both parties and in the best interests of the employees. The approval was made effective from the date of the decision, allowing the agreement to be implemented and binding on the parties.

Yakult Australia 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