Bakers Delight workers: Vote ‘NO’ to the proposed agreement
Say ‘NO’ to low pay, insecurity, and undermining industry standards!
Very soon Bakers Delight workers at St Helena, Diamond Creek and Laurimar will have to vote on a whether to accept a new workplace agreement. Unfortunately Bakers Delight has a history of trying to take advantage of young workers. In 2005 they were one of the first companies to use John Howard’s IR laws to undermine Award conditions. The current agreement is a legacy of this time and is one of the worst in Australia.
We don’t want to see something similar get through again. UNITE has produced this leaflet to make sure you know exactly what you are voting for.
The proposed agreement is worse than the Award!
The agreement being put forward by your employer, Mr. Price, is not like most other agreements in Australia. Usually agreements extend upon Award conditions and lock in annual pay rises. Mr. Price’s agreement does not do this. The proposed agreement instead rearranges things to create a situation where you have sold off things like penalty rates, sick pay and holiday pay in exchange for a tiny bit extra in the base rate.
If you ever work evenings, nights or weekends you will be disadvantaged. If you miss work due to illness or have a holiday in the next 4 years you will also miss out on pay. ALL workers will miss out on something.
It is the legal responsibility of the employer to properly explain the agreement to you. The employer should also make clear the differences between the Award, the old agreement and what they are proposing. They should give you a copy and show you exactly how their proposal differs from industry standards. Make sure you do not vote for something you have not seen or read.
UNITE also wants to make sure that the voting system is fair. Any vote should be held at a time when everyone can attend, not when most people are at school or university. Last time Mr. Price held the vote on a weekday when many workers were at school and didn’t offer to pay people for coming in to vote. This is not a proper process and should not happen again.
Why is Mr. Price undermining industry standards?
One argument as to why Mr. Price is refusing to comply with industry standards is that he can’t afford to. Despite asking for proof, neither UNITE or Fair Work Australia have seen any evidence that the business is financially unstable.
To the contrary we firmly believe that his business is thriving. Compared to what the company turns over every day the amount paid out in wages is tiny. Other bakeries and retail stores across Australia manage to pay penalty rates and not go broke. Why are Mr. Price’s stores so different?
It is obvious that in every business there is constant conflict between the amount of profits made by the employer and the wages paid to the workers. We argue that the workers play an integral role in the running of the business. On this basis we think you should be compensated appropriately.
At the same time as saying he can’t afford it, Mr. Price is also saying his proposed agreement is better than the Award. This is clearly a contradiction. Apart from some vague references to flexibility, Mr. Price has been unable to explain exactly how you will be better off. While the proposed agreement gives the employer the flexibility to cut shifts and deny pay rises, it guarantees employees like you very little.
What happens if you vote ‘YES’?
If you vote ‘YES’ for the proposed agreement it will determine your pay and conditions for the next 4 years.
You will be disadvantaged from the very beginning. On January 1st next year new laws come into place that will improve Award wages and conditions. Many Bakers Delight workers would be re-classified to a higher base rate than the current Award. So while the proposed agreement may pass the no disadvantage test now, it probably wouldn’t after January 1st. We are concerned that Mr. Price is trying to rush a new agreement through before the changes take place.
In many ways, the proposed agreement is worse than what you are on at the moment. While it does include an increase on the base rate it leaves out other things like guaranteed hours, rules on ordinary hours of work and a review of pay rates every year.
Voting ‘YES’ will also mean the continuation of insecure hours. At the moment you are employed on a permanent part time basis but you get treated as casuals. This will continue under the proposed agreement. You will have no security of hours or guaranteed shifts. At least under the current agreement you are entitled to a minimum of 12 hours per fortnight. This is not the case under the proposed agreement. You will be employed under casual conditions but not be paid the 25% casual loading casual employees are entitled to!
Voting ‘YES’ will also mean that you are not guaranteed any pay rises to keep up with the cost of living. The only time you would be eligible for a pay rise is if the minimum wage goes up. This doesn’t always happen.
If you vote ‘YES’ you are basically voting for an agreement with no penalty rates, no holiday pay, no sick pay and no pay rises. You will be locked into this agreement and will not be able to get out of it. We strongly urge all workers to vote ‘NO’ for the proposed agreement. It undermines industry standards and will leave you worse off compared to the Award.
Your vote will effect more than just yourself and your fellow work mates. If other employers see Mr. Price getting away with ripping off young people they will try and follow suit.
What happens if you vote ‘NO’?
Voting ‘NO’ to the proposed agreement will mean that Mr. Price will have to make some improvements and you will get to vote on it again. You should keep voting ‘NO’ to the proposal until you are 100% happy with it.
Remember, you can’t get into any trouble if you vote ‘NO’.
Mr Price’s lawyers made it very clear that the proposed agreement was designed to undermine the Award as much as possible while still passing the no disadvantage test. Mr Price has a history of walking the fine line between legal and illegal agreements. While his 2005 agreement just passed the no disadvantage test, his 2007 agreement was deemed illegal. His lawyers have admitted that you are being disadvantaged under the current agreement. We urge you not to let this happen again.
Voting ‘NO’ on the proposed agreement will send a clear message to Mr Price that you will not put up with being disadvantaged anymore.
Voting ‘NO’ would make it very likely that Fair Work Australia terminate your current agreement and you would revert back to the Award. Reverting to the Award would improve the wages and conditions of all workers who currently get paid according to the agreement.
We know you work hard and deserve better.
Don’t accept one of the worst collective agreements in Australia.
Say ‘NO’ to the proposed agreement.
