Sodexo Enterprise Agreement

The battle began in July 2017, when Sodexo attempted to replace its corporate agreement, which covers its offshore operations. 3.42 AIMPE was contacted by MMA staff who heard that an agreement had been voted on but had not been given the opportunity to vote. Employees who were part of the same group had actually been divided into two groups, with a small sub-group of employees assigned to a new entity created to avoid further corporate negotiations and quickly reach an agreement:[36] We understand that no negotiations took place in Australia. Negotiations took place abroad and the authorization of the agreement was granted abroad. The agreement that Inco is trying to reach is an agreement to which our members have not contributed and which, as far as we know, has certainly not been negotiated in Australia. [53] 3.54 Such a strategy is to use coordination cohorts to qualify agreements as broaderly applicable. The Australian Manufacturing Workers` Union provided several examples. In McDermott Australia Pty Ltd v AWU, AMWU [2016], a full FWC decision allowed casual workers who had the company on their books to approve an agreement when they were not doing work at the time: ESS had entered into an agreement about four months before the contract was concluded, an agreement with six employees at WA to cover South Australia and Victoria. These six employees had not worked before or at the time of the contract, or since then in Southern Australia and Victoria, and yet this agreement, which applies only to Southern Australia and Victoria, was “negotiated” – which really means: “Here`s a document; We want you to support it” – in Western Australia. [21] The union challenged the authorization on the grounds that it was an attempt to manipulate the agreement process, given that the employees were not selected fairly and the agreement was not actually reached. Full Bench dismissed the appeal and found that in the absence of a proposal that staff were not employed for good faith business reasons, there was nothing inappropriate in using a small voice cohort to approve broader corporate agreements.

[14] 3.40 The Committee heard evidence from a number of companies that allegedly created new subsidiaries in order to use a small number of employees to secure company agreements. Despite the requirements of the FW Act regarding the negotiation and approval of contracts, there are also examples showing that workers do not receive a notification of workers` representation rights or a copy of the proposed agreement or, in some cases, that they do not even have the opportunity to vote on an agreement, let alone being involved in a negotiation process. [12] (iii) the legal context in which the agreement was concluded and in which it operates. . . .