Home > Asia Pacific > Australia > Clause “No extra claims” in The Enterprise Agreement is holding back employers who change their company car policies. The Full Court`s decision confirms Toyota`s decision to obtain the agreement of its employees to amend its enterprise agreement to make it more competitive. However, shortly after Justice Bromberg`s initial decision, Toyota announced plans to close its Australian production in 2017. While the Federal Court of Justice`s decision does not affect Toyota`s operations, it does not mean that the company is no longer at risk of sanctions because of violations of the FW act found in Justice Bromberg`s original decision. On December 12, 2013, his Honour Justice Bromberg found that Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited`s (Toyota / the Company) request to amend its enterprise agreement to abolish “obsolete and non-competitive” provisions constituted a violation of the “No further claims” clause in Clause 4 of its enterprise agreement. What does that mean? This means that after the implementation of the agreements in the transaction contract, employers and workers have no other rights against each other. The employer submitted that the reference to Term 4 to “conditions of employment” refers only to issues that are dealt with in the agreement, and unless an enterprise agreement is explicitly devoted to the employer`s employment policy (which has not been done), there is no legal obstacle for an employer exercising its management policy. In accordance with Article 4 of the agreement, the parties committed that “for the duration of the agreement, there will be no other rights with respect to wage increases or working conditions requested or granted, with the exception of those granted under this agreement.” The decision stresses that a broad “no additional rights” clause in an enterprise agreement can be extended to non-agreeable issues and limit an employer`s ability to vary the terms of employment granted to workers outside contractual terms. Bromberg J.A. stated that Toyota could only amend its enterprise agreement in a “two-step” procedure, with Toyota first having to ask its employees to amend the agreement to remove Clause 4. It is therefore important to discuss all possible requests during the negotiations leading up to the preparation of the settlement agreement and to reach agreement on these claims. Therefore, additional rights clauses should not be developed in enterprise agreements to ensure that their scope is limited to the issues covered by the agreement. Parliament stated that an enterprise agreement could be different and that the employer could, in this regard, apply to its employees, a clause stipulating or stipulating that the employer could not do so, must necessarily be incompatible with the FW Act or, in this respect, repugnant.
[paragraph 97] The employer and its employees were covered by an ongoing enterprise agreement( The applicant union challenged the proposed amendments to the directive and argued that the text of Clause 4 of the agreement prohibited any “other claim” for wage increases or terms of employment (whether or not these issues were specifically addressed in the agreement). The union argued that the right to limited private use of operating vehicles was granted to some workers as a reward for additional supervisory duties and that, as such, it was part of the conditions of employment of the workers concerned.