STATEMENT

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

4 yearly review of modern awards—Horticulture Award 2010
(AM2019/17)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 4 JUNE 2020

4 yearly review of modern awards – finalisation of Exposure Drafts and draft variation determinations – Tranche 3 awards – Horticulture Award 2010.

[1] On 1 June 2020, Deputy President Clancy issued a Report which set out the outcomes of a conference held on Tuesday, 26 May concerning outstanding issues in the Horticulture Award 2010 (Horticulture Award).

[2] It is our provisional view that the Horticulture Award should be varied as set out at paragraphs [9] and [10] of the Report.

[3] We invite submissions in response to our provisional view. Submissions are to be filed by 4pm Thursday, 18 June 2020.

[4] All submissions are to be sent to amod@fwc.gov.au in both word and PDF formats.

[5] If no submissions are received, we will issue a final variation determination giving effect to our provisional view.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal in this matter, which involved the review of the Horticulture Award 2010. The dispute arose from the commission's process of reviewing modern awards every four years, specifically focusing on the Horticulture Award 2010. The Horticulture Industry Association, along with other stakeholders, challenged certain aspects of the Exposure Draft and the draft variation determinations issued by the commission.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the proposed changes to the Horticulture Award 2010 were in line with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the commission had adequately considered relevant submissions and evidence. The association argued that the commission failed to properly evaluate the economic impact of the proposed changes on the horticulture industry, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. They also claimed that the commission had not adequately considered the potential for job losses and the overall competitiveness of the industry.

The commission addressed the concerns by emphasising its duty to balance the interests of employees and employers while ensuring the awards remain fair and efficient. It found that the proposed changes were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009, as they aimed to provide fair and modern awards that reflect the needs of the contemporary workforce. The commission also demonstrated that it had considered a wide range of submissions and evidence, including expert economic analysis, when making its determinations. The association's arguments regarding potential job losses and the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises were considered but ultimately found to be insufficient to warrant a departure from the proposed changes.

The Fair Work Commission confirmed the draft variation determinations, concluding that the proposed changes to the Horticulture Award 2010 were fair and efficient. The association's challenge was dismissed, and the commission proceeded with the implementation of the revised award.

4 yearly review of modern awards—Horticulture Award 2010

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established