Resources: Blogs

The ‘better off over all test’

Blogs
|

If the BOOT doesn't fit

In order for an Enterprise Agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the proposed agreement must pass the ‘better off over all test’ (the BOOT).

AJ Convenience Stores Pty Ltd T/A 7-Eleven Rozelle & 7-Eleven Bexley [2016] FWC 330

In order for an Enterprise Agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the proposed agreement must pass the ‘better off over all test’ (the BOOT).

Section 193 of the FW Act provides that a proposed agreement will pass the BOOT if:

‘the FWC is satisfied, as at the test time, that each award covered employee, and each prospective award covered employee ... would be better off overall if the agreement applied to the employee than if the relevant modern award applied to the employee .’

Commissioner Roe’s decision in AJ Convenience Stores Pty Ltd T/A 7-Eleven Rozelle & 7-Eleven Bexley [2016] FWC 330 demonstrates how this test is applied by the FWC.

AJ Convenience Stores (the Employer) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to approve its proposed 7-Eleven Fuel and Non-Fuel Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Proposed Agreement). Following lodgement, the Commission raised a number of issues with respect to the Proposed Agreement, particularly the rates of pay.

Commissioner Roe was concerned that the rates of pay provided in the proposed agreement did not sufficiently compensate for the reductions in entitlements in comparison to the relevant modern award. The Employer put forward typical rosters and argued that these demonstrated that the hourly rates were sufficient to meet the BOOT.

However, the Commissioner Roe was not satisfied with the evidence relied upon by the Employer. Commissioner Roe held that “it is necessary to consider what the Agreement allows to be done in respect to rosters not just what occurs under typical rosters to be sure that each employee and prospective employee is better off overall at the test time.”

This is an important aspect of the BOOT, namely the Commission’s close examination as to what the agreement “could” allow in terms of rostering and other terms and conditions and whether such arrangements would lead to an employee being worse off when compared to the modern award. This is a potential downside to building enterprise agreements with significant flexibility provisions in favour of the employer.

Commissioner Roe noted that rostering arrangements could be changed by the Employer, in particular as the stores operated on a 24 hour basis. Of specific concern was the number of hours performed by employees at night and on weekends. He sought an undertaking from the Employer that would restrict the amount of hours performed by employees at night and on weekends.

Practically speaking, the purpose of requesting the undertaking would be a mathematical one – so that the limited hours worked outside the span of hours could be compared to the rates that the agreement offered with a degree of certainty as to how many hours at penalty rates were to be included in the BOOT calculation.

The Employer offered two different undertakings but each was rejected by the Commission as they did not ensure that employees would be better off overall under the proposed agreement. Commissioner Roe noted that an employee working 40% of their hours on the weekend would be significantly worse off under the agreement when compared to what the employee would otherwise earn under the modern award once penalty rates were taken into account.

Accordingly, the application for approval of the proposed agreement was dismissed as the Employer did not provide the Commission with the appropriate undertakings to ensure that all employees – full-time, part-time or casual were better off overall.

Employers who are applying to have their proposed enterprise agreements approved are reminded that whilst parties may negotiate and agree on a rate of pay, the Commission still will independently determine and assess whether or not the rate paid to employees along with the other terms and condition in the agreement will result in the employees being better off overall.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Dispute about “ordinary time earnings” settled by Full Federal Court

Out of the ordinary

In a timely reminder about the importance of carefully drafting enterprise agreements, the Federal Court of Australia – Full Court has recently determined a dispute about the definition of “ordinary time earnings” in a particular enterprise agreement. In doing so, the Full Court confirmed that departures from the plain text of an enterprise agreement will not be justified (unless there is an absurdity or a very seriously anomalous result).

Read more...

Webinar Recap - Secure Jobs, Better Pay: 6 June 2023 - Key changes for employers

In December 2022, the Federal Government passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) resulting in several significant changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). These changes have and will come into effect on various dates, with the latest wave of amendments being live as of 6 June 2023.

Read more...

Secure Jobs, Better Pay: 6 June 2023 - key changes for employers on this date

The passing of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) has resulted in several significant changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). With some of these changes already in force, employers must now turn their minds to 6 June 2023 – the date of which the next wave of amendments will take effect.

Read more...

Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.

Read more...

Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.

Read more...

Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.