Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Application by Shaydi Pty Ltd

Fair Work Commission 2005-04-27
Source
Commissioner Whelan
Not yet cited by other cases
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Sign in to analyse

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Concept tags · 3

[P]Annual leave [P]Personal/carer's leave [S]Declaration
Archived text (611 words)
PR957626 PR957626 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s.170LK certification of agreement Shaydi Pty Ltd (AG2004/4975) SHAYDI PTY LTD CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2004 Wholesale and retail trade COMMISSIONER WHELAN MELBOURNE, 27 APRIL 2005 Certification of Division 2 agreement with employees. DECISION [1] This is an application for certification of an agreement between Shaydi Pty Ltd and its employees engaged in the business known as Lenard's Poultry Franchise at Mornington Central Shopping Centre in Mornington, Victoria. At the time the application was lodged an application was also made under section 170XF of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for the designation of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association - Victoria Shops Interim Award 2000 [AW796250] as an appropriate award for the purpose of deciding whether the agreement passes the no disadvantage test. [2] Having heard from Mr Madder, director of the company and Mr Thompson, the legal representative of the applicant, I am satisfied that the award proposed is an appropriate one, in that the applicant meets the definition of a Class A exempt shop in clause 4.2.5 of that award. [3] The application was supported by a statutory declaration by Mr Madder for the applicant and by a table comparing the annual pay for part-time and full-time employees compared with those engaged under the terms of the award. [4] The table is calculated over a period of 52 weeks and includes the following parameters: · working of four public holidays at 5.4 hours on each occasion; · working a maximum of 25 Saturdays at 5.4 hours on each occasion; · working a maximum of 25 Sundays at 5.4 hours on each occasion; · working a maximum of 12 hours per week between 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., and · working a maximum of three hours per week between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. (These are the parameters set out in clause 15 - Work parameters, Weekends and public holidays, of the Agreement). [5] The rates for a full-time employee under the Agreement are inclusive of public holidays, annual leave loading and penalties for weekend and night/early morning work. The rates for a part-time employee are inclusive of these plus annual leave and sick leave. [6] On the basis of these calculations a full-time Level 1 employee would earn over 52 weeks $0.06 in excess of the award rate and a part-time employee $0.06 in excess of the award rate. The latter assumes that a part-time employee does not take any annual leave during the 52 weeks. [7] At the request of the Commission indicative rosters for a 14-day roster were produced. On those rosters no employee worked more than eight hours in any one day and no employee worked both Saturday and Sunday in the same week. The Commission was notified that the hours of operation of the business were 9.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Saturday to Wednesday and 9.00 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. on Thursday and Friday. Employees involved in preparation started before 9.00 a.m. [8] Given the parameters on which the rates have been calculated and the evidence concerning the actual rosters worked I am satisfied that these employees would not be disadvantaged by working under the terms of the Agreement. [9] All other requirements of section 170LK and section 170LT having been met, I am satisfied that this agreement should be certified. A certificate will be issued in the terms discussed at the hearing. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Appearances: B. Thompson with S. Madder and D. Hortle for Shaydi Pty Ltd and J. Pimlott , employee representative. Hearing details: 2005. Melbourne: January 20. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A>