ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with a dispute under Cormack Packaging MFG P/L Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 – employees work either an 8 ordinary hour roster (known as 24/5) or a 12 hour roster (known as 24/7) – these rosters have been worked at least since 1 July 2011 under previous enterprise agreement – under the terms of the previous agreement and the current agreement, employees working the 24/7 roster had their wages paid as an ‘all-up’ or ‘loaded’ rate to incorporate payments for shift loadings and overtime or penalties – this rate became the base rate and was used to calculate the payments for other entitlements such as annual leave, personal/carer’s leave, public holidays and overtime – on 9 May 2016 the respondent advised its employees working on the 24/7 roster that they would have their payments for abovementioned entitlements changed from the established method of ‘loaded’ rate to base rate – respondent submitted that the change would be made as it had identified an administrative miscalculation with previous payments – applicant submitted respondent formed incorrect view of the appropriate meaning of ‘base rate of pay’ for employees on 24/7 roster – Commission held when the respondent’s employees were notified on 9 May 2016 of a change to be instituted from 6 June 2016 to the calculation of various entitlements, they were being notified of the proposed change from the basis on which those entitlements had been calculated since 2011 – the NES does not prohibit the payment of amounts greater than the base rate of pay pursuant to an agreement or otherwise – Commission found that the payment of the loaded rates of pay the subject of this dispute notification did not occur as a result of an administrative miscalculation – those amounts were paid because that was the agreement between the parties, acknowledged by the continued payment of that rate of pay from 2011 uninterrupted from one agreement to another until the correspondence of 9 May 2016 – Commission found the characterisation of these payments as having occurred as a result of an administrative miscalculation is an attempt to remake agreed terms acknowledged and confirmed by long practice. Australian Workers’ Union, The v Cormack Packaging MFG P/L
…
