[2019] FWC 2604

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.248 - Application for a single interest employer authorisation

Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Limited
(B2019/305)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 17 APRIL 2019

Application for a single interest employer authorisation – fast food industry – numerous franchisees – application granted – authorisation made.

[1] On 12 April 2019 an application was made by Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Limited (‘Yum!’) and 78 other named employers (the ‘Employers’), pursuant to s 248 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) for a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement. I note an amended application was lodged on 15 April 2019. The Employers are engaged in the fast food industry as franchisees of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

[2] Section 248 of the Act provides as follows:

‘248 Single interest employer authorisations

(1) Two or more employers may apply to the FWC for an authorisation (a single interest employer authorisation) under section 249 in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement.

Note: The effect of a single interest employer authorisation is that the employers are single interest employers in relation to the agreement (see paragraph 172(5)(c)).

(2) The application must specify the following:

• the employers that will be covered by the agreement;

• the employees who will be covered by the agreement;

• the person (if any) nominated by the employers to make applications under this Act if the authorisation is made.’

[3] The application specifies the following employers (the ‘Employers’) to be covered by the proposed agreement:

Baymax Pty Ltd

D & B Arnolda Family Pty. Limited as Trustee for the D&B Arnolda Family Trust

Sandyshore Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Ashton Family Trust

Athu Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Athurkorala Family Trust

Sangor Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Sangor Discretionary Trust

Sedar Warnambool Pty. Ltd as Trustee for the Sedar Warrnambool Discretionary Trust

Rigel Portland Pty. Ltd as Trustee for the Rigel Portland Discretionary Trust

Delah Hamilton Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Delah Hamilton Discretionary Trust

RTR Restaurants Pty Ltd

Marcamp Pty Ltd

Changela Food Py Ltd as Trustee for the Changela Family Trust

RSJ Family Pty Ltd

Mandir Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Chudal Family Trust

Broadview (Aust) Pty Ltd

Kozpat Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kozpat Trust

Dimothenis Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Dimas Family Trust

Edelmanian Enterprises Pty Ltd

Red Earth Enterprises Pty Ltd

Free Grange Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Ellin Family Trust

Melsem Pty Ltd as Trustee for the RD Else Family Trust

S.P. Etheridge Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Etheridge Trust

Fishfood Trading Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Fisher Family Trust

Fishfood Holdings Pty Ltd

Stephkon Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kon & Stephanie Genovezos Family Trust

MML Restaurant Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Glanville Family Trust

CMC Sydney Pty Ltd

H & L Family Restaurants Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Haydan Family Trust

TPH Group Pty…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FWC 2604
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for a single interest employer authorisation, seeking to act as the employer for all its franchisees in the fast food industry. The application raised questions about the scope of the authorisation and the impact on the franchisees' rights and obligations. The Commission had to determine if the application met the statutory criteria and if granting it would be in the interests of the employees.

The legal issues involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections relating to single interest employer authorisations. The Commission needed to assess whether the application satisfied the requirements of being in the best interests of the employees, and if the authorisation would not have an adverse effect on the rights and obligations of the franchisees. Additionally, the Commission considered the potential impact on bargaining and the overall fairness of the arrangement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the application met the statutory criteria and was in the best interests of the employees. The authorisation was considered to be fair and not detrimental to the rights and obligations of the franchisees. The Commission noted that the arrangement would facilitate more efficient and effective bargaining, benefiting all parties involved. Consequently, the Commission granted the application and issued the authorisation.

The final orders included the grant of the single interest employer authorisation, allowing Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Limited to act as the employer for its franchisees in the fast food industry. The authorisation was made subject to specific conditions designed to protect the interests of the employees and the franchisees.

Orders