4 yearly review of modern awards

[2016] FWCFB 4566

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

4 yearly review of modern awards
(AM2016/7)

WINE INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
[MA000090]

Wine industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON	ADELAIDE, 15 JULY 2016

4 yearly review of modern awards: Wine Industry Award 2010 - substantive issues.

[1] The Commission is presently conducting a review of modern awards under s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision concerns the review of the Wine Industry Award 2010 (the award) and a proposed variation to clause 23.4 Meal Allowance.

[2] Part of the review process being conducted by the Commission included consideration of a range of specific proposals being advanced by organisations with an interest in the award. Ultimately, one of those proposals has been pursued by the South Australian Wine Industry Association Inc and now supported by the unions and other employer organisations that have participated in this part of the review.

[3] In a Statement 1 issued by this Full Bench on 15 June 2016, we indicated that absent any objections to this agreed position, the Full Bench proposed to determine the meal allowance issue in the terms set out within that Statement.2 No objections have been provided to the Commission.

[4] The proposed variation, updated to reflect the present meal allowance arising from the Annual Wage Review 2015-16, 3 is as follows:

By deleting clause 24.3 and inserting the following:

24.3 Meal allowance

An employee who works overtime must, in addition to the rates prescribed elsewhere in this award, be paid $13.81 as a meal allowance on each occasion they work overtime in excess of two hours following their ordinary day or shift. Provided that such meal allowance need not be made to an employee who can reasonably return home for a meal or who has been notified the day before that they will be required to work overtime or where the employee is provided with an adequate meal by the employer.

[5] The effect of the variation is to include an additional circumstance whereby the specified meal allowance is not payable during the relevant overtime work. Namely, where an adequate meal is provided to the employee by the employer.

[6] We are satisfied that the variation proposed is necessary to ensure that the award achieves the modern awards objective 4. We also accept that the variation to the award is appropriate having regard to that objective and the circumstances of this award more generally.

[7] Accordingly, the award is to be varied and a determination 5 giving effect to this decision is also being issued in conjunction with this decision.

[8] The variation will operate on and from 1 August 2016.

COMMISSIONER

1 MA000090 – published on the Commission’s website.

2 Ibid at [6].

3 [2016] FWCFB 3500.

4 Section 134 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

5 PR582656.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Fair Work Commission, which was conducting a four-yearly review of the Wine Industry Award 2010. The dispute centred around the substantive issues identified during the review process, specifically concerning the application and interpretation of certain award provisions. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to determine included the correct interpretation of various award provisions, the relevance and application of industry-specific evidence, and the appropriate methodology for conducting the four-yearly review. The court also had to consider the impact of any changes proposed on various stakeholders, including employers, employees, and the wine industry as a whole.

The Fair Work Commission considered the submissions and evidence provided by the parties and undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant award provisions. The court found that some of the proposed changes to the award were justified based on the evidence presented, while others were not supported by sufficient evidence or were inconsistent with the overall objectives of the award. The court emphasised the importance of a balanced approach that took into account the interests of all stakeholders and the need to maintain a fair and efficient workplace environment. The final orders reflected the court's findings and recommendations, providing a revised version of the Wine Industry Award 2010 that incorporated the approved changes and maintained the integrity of the award system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established