s.306E - Application for a regulated labour hire arrangement order

Applications by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union re Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd

Applications for regulated labour hire arrangement orders in respect of Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd and Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd in relation to work performed at the Beresfield Poultry Processing Facility for Bartter Enterprises Pty Ptd - Parties accept that requirements in s 306E(1) and (1A) are met and that s 306E(2) is not engaged -Requirements for making of orders met - Orders made.

• [1] The Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (the AMIEU) has made two applications for regulated labour hire arrangements orders under s 306E of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The orders would apply to employees of Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd (Ready Workforce) and Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd (APG) who are supplied to perform work for Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd (Bartter) at the Beresfield Poultry Processing Facility near Newcastle in New South Wales. The host employment instrument is the Steggles Beresfield Site (Production & Distribution) EA 2022-2026 (AG2022/4419) (the Steggles Beresfield Agreement).

• [2] Bartter, Ready Workforce and APG each filed a Form F86A - Response to an application for a regulated labour hire arrangement order and each indicated that no objection was made to the proposed orders being made. The parties subsequently had some difficulties in finalising an agreed statement of facts for the purposes of the Commission dealing with the applications. On 23 September 2025, the AMIEU filed written submissions and a witness statement made by the Assistant Secretary of the AMIEU Newcastle, Northern, South Australian and Tasmania Branch, Jason Roe.

• [3] The applications were listed before me on 26 September 2025. At the case management hearing, two issues emerged. First, Bartter raised an issue in relation to the operation of s 306E(1)(b) of the Act in circumstances in which the Steggles Beresfield Agreement was a transferrable instrument that, at that time, applied only to employees who had transferred in their employment from Steggles Pty Ltd to Bartter in 2023. Second, Bartter disputed some of the evidence contained in the witness statement of Mr Roe and objected to the Commission determining the applications on the basis of the facts stated in Mr Roe's witness statement. The matter was stood over to enable the parties to take steps to address the two issues.

• [4] To resolve the first issue the AMIEU subsequently filed an application for an order under s 319(1)(b) of the Act. The effect of such an order would be that all employees of Bartter performing work at the Beresfield facility would become covered by the Steggles Beresfield Agreement. The making of such an order was not opposed by Bartter. I will address that application in a separate decision which will be published at the same time of this decision. In that decision, I indicate that I am satisfied an order should be made under s 319(1)(b) and an order will be published together with that decision.

• [5] In relation to the second issue, the parties were able to finalise a Statement of Agreed Facts with respect to each application which identified those matters that are agreed between the parties as well as those matters in relation to which there is not agreement. All parties submitted that the facts stated in the Statements of Agreed Facts are sufficient to resolve the applications without relying on the witness statement of Mr Roe. Bartter indicated that, if the Commission was not satisfied that the applications would be resolved on the basis of the two Statements of Agreed Facts, it wished to be heard further in relation to the applications. That will be unnecessary. I am satisfied that the Commission is required by s 306E(1) to make regulated labour hire arrangement orders in relation to both applications based on the Statements of Agreed Facts.

• [6] A separate Statement of Agreed Facts was filed with respect to the applications concerning Ready Workforce and APG although they are in similar, but not identical, terms. The Statements of Agreed Facts concerning Ready Workforce and APG are annexed to this decision and marked as Attachment A and Attachment B respectively.

• [7] It is sufficient, for present purposes, to record that, in both cases, it is agreed that Ready Workforce and APG supply employees to Bartter to perform work for Bartter at the Beresfield facility. It is further agreed that:

(a) Ready Workforce and APG employees at the Beresfield facility perform work that is wholly or principally for the benefit of Bartter.

(b) The day-to-day performance of duties by Ready Workforce and APG employees at the Beresfield facility occurs at the direction and control of Bartter.

(c) Ready Workforce and APG employees at the Beresfield facility use the systems and operate the same plant, equipment and machinery as Bartter's employees.

(d) Ready Workforce and APG employees at the Beresfield facility process poultry that is subject to quality control and review by Bartter employees.

(e) Ready Workforce and APG employees working at the Beresfield facility are rostered by APG and work with Bartter's employees on site according to Bartter's operational requirements.

(f) Bartter assigns tasks to, supervises and controls the work of Ready Workforce and APG employees working at the Beresfield Facility.

• [8] The Statements of Agreed Facts record that there is some disagreement between the parties as to the precise nature of the duties performed by employees of Ready Workforce and APG at the Beresfield facility. The Statement of Agreed Facts with respect to Ready Workforce states:

1. Ready Workforce employs workers under the Poultry Processing Award 2020 (Award) at Bartter who are engaged in poultry processing work as classified in the award, however the parties disagree about the duties that are performed by the regulated employees.

(a) The AMIEU's view of the duties that are typically performed includes:

1. Killing of live birds and all associated tasks;
2. Poultry deboning and all associated tasks;
3. Operating machines that are associated with poultry processing;
4. Quality Assurance and all associated tasks;
5. General labouring and all associated tasks;
6. Packing and all associated tasks.

(b) The Bartter and Ready Workforce's views of the duties that are typically performed include:

1. Killing of live birds and all associated tasks;
2. General processing tasks associated with machine deboning;
3. Manual deboning of turkeys;
4. Operating machines that are associated with poultry processing;
5. Quality Assurance and all associated tasks;
6. General labouring and all associated tasks;
7. Packing and all associated tasks; and
8. Warehousing and pick packing tasks.

• [9] A similar list is contained in the Statement of Agreed Facts with respect to APG as follows:

1. APG employs workers under the Poultry Processing Award 2020 (Award) at Bartter who are engaged in poultry processing work as classified in the award, however the parties disagree about the duties that are performed by the regulated employees..

(a) The AMIEU's view of the duties that are typically performed includes:

1. Killing of live birds and all associated tasks;
2. Poultry deboning and all associated tasks;
3. Operating machines that are associated with poultry processing;
4. Quality Assurance and all associated tasks;
5. General labouring and all associated tasks;
6. Packing and all associated tasks.

(b) Bartter and APG's views of the duties that are typically performed include:

1. Killing of live birds and all associated tasks;
2. General processing tasks associated with machine deboning;
3. Manual deboning of turkeys;
4. Operating machines that are associated with poultry processing;
5. General labouring and all associated tasks;
6. Packing and all associated tasks; and
7. Warehousing and pick packing tasks.

• [10] The Statement of Agreed Facts concerning APG also records a disagreement concerning the involvement of APG in promotion and discipline in the following terms:

1. The parties disagree about who is responsible for promotions and discipline of the APG employees:

1. the AMIEU says that Bartter typically controls and directs whether APG employees at the Beresfield Facility are to be promoted or disciplined; and

1. Bartter and APG say that APG typically controls and directs whether APG employees at the Beresfield Facility are to be promoted or disciplined, with input from Bartter and which is often initiated by Bartter.

• [11] The parties all submit that, notwithstanding that there is some disagreement in relation to some aspects of the work performed by employees of Ready Workforce and APG, the Commission should be satisfied that the requirements for the making of regulated labour hire arrangement orders are met in both cases.

• [12] Part 2-7A of the Act is entitled "Regulated labour hire arrangement orders" and provides, among other things, for the Commission to make such orders and sets out the obligations of employers and regulated hosts covered by those orders. The key provision in Part 2-7A is s 306E which sets out when the Commission must make a regulated labour hire arrangement order. The most relevant parts of s 306E for present purposes are as follows:

306E FWC may make a regulated labour hire arrangement order

(1) The FWC must, on application by a person mentioned in subsection (7), make an order (a regulated labour hire arrangement order) if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) an employer supplies or will supply, either directly or indirectly, one or more employees of the employer to perform work for a regulated host; and

(b) a covered employment instrument that applies to the regulated host would apply to the employees if the regulated host were to employ the employees to perform work of that kind; and

(c) the regulated host is not a small business employer.

Note: The FWC may make other decisions under this Part which relate to regulated labour hire arrangement orders: see Subdivisions C (short - term arrangements) and D (alternative protected rate of pay orders) of this Division, and Division 3 (dealing with disputes).

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the FWC must not make the order unless it is satisfied that the performance of the work is not or will not be for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour, having regard to the matters in subsection (7A).

(2) Despite subsection (1), the FWC must not make the order if the FWC is satisfied that it is not fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to do so, having regard to any matters in subsection (8) in relation to which submissions have been made.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), in determining whether a covered employment instrument would apply to the employees, it does not matter on what basis the employees are or would be employed.

Matters that must be considered in relation to whether work is for the provision of a service

(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1A), the matters are as follows:

(a) the involvement of the employer in matters relating to the performance of the work;

(b) the extent to which, in practice, the employer or a person acting on behalf of the employer directs, supervises or controls (or will direct, supervise or control) the regulated employees when they perform the work, including by managing rosters, assigning tasks or reviewing the quality of the work;

(c) the extent to which the regulated employees use or will use systems, plant or structures of the employer to perform the work;

(d) the extent to which either the employer or another person is or will be subject to industry or professional standards or responsibilities in relation to the regulated employees;

(e) the extent to which the work is of a specialist or expert nature.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (2), the matters are as follows:

(a) the pay arrangements that apply to employees of the regulated host (or related bodies corporate of the regulated host) and the regulated employees, including in relation to:

(i) whether the host employment instrument applies only to a particular class or group of employees; and

(ii) whether, in practice, the host employment instrument has ever applied to an employee at a classification, job level or grade that would be applicable to the regulated employees; and

(iii) the rate of pay that would be payable to the regulated employees if the order were made;

(c) the history of industrial arrangements applying to the regulated host and the employer;

(d) the relationship between the regulated host and the employer, including whether they are related bodies corporate or engaged in a joint venture or common enterprise;

(da) if the performance of the work is or will be wholly or principally for the benefit of a joint venture or common enterprise engaged in by the regulated host and one or more other persons:

(i) the nature of the regulated host's interests in the joint venture or common enterprise; and

(ii) the pay arrangements that apply to employees of any of the other persons engaged in the joint venture or common enterprise (or related bodies corporate of those other persons);

(e) the terms and nature of the arrangement under which the work will be performed, including:

(i) the period for which the arrangement operates or will operate; and

(ii) the location of the work being performed or to be performed under the arrangement; and

(iii) the industry in which the regulated host and the employer operate; and

(iv) the number of employees of the employer performing work, or who are to perform work, for the regulated host under the arrangement;

• [13] Section 306E has now been considered by the Full Bench in a number of significant decisions, including Re Mining and Energy Union [2024] FWCFB 299; (2024) 333 IR 249, Application by the Mining and Energy Union re Rix's Creek [2025] FWCFB 12, Application by the Mining and Energy Union re Bengalla Mining Company Pty Ltd [2025] FWCFB 53 and Applications by the Mining and Energy Union re Goonyella Riverside Mine, Peak Downs Mine and Saraji Mine [2025] FWCFB 134. I have had regard to the guidance provided by the Full Bench in those decisions.

• [14] I am satisfied, for the purposes of s 306E(7) of the Act, that the AMIEU is an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employees of Ready Workforce and APG who are supplied to perform work for Bartter at the Beresfield facility. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the AMIEU's rules, it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of its employees who are employed by Ready Workforce and APG and who perform work at the Beresfield facility. Accordingly, the AMIEU is entitled to apply for a regulated labour hire arrangement order under s 306E of the Act.

• [15] I am further satisfied that the requirements in s 306E(1) of the Act, in relation to which I must be satisfied to trigger the obligation to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order, are met. I am satisfied, on the basis of the Statements of Agreed Facts, that both Ready Workforce and APG supply employees employed by them to perform work for Bartter at the Beresfield facility involving killing live birds, processing tasks and associated work for the purposes of s 306E(1)(a).

• [16] The Steggles Beresfield Agreement has, up to now, only applied to employees who transferred from Steggles Pty Ltd to Bartter in 2023. I have decided separately to this decision to make an order under s 319(1)(b) of the Act which has the effect such that the Steggles Beresfield Agreement covers non-transferring employees. As such, there is no dispute that the Steggles Beresfield Agreement could apply to the employees of Ready Workforce and APG supplied to perform work at the Beresfield facility if Bartter were to employ those employees directly to perform the same kind of work for the purposes of s 306E(1)(b). In that respect, nothing turns on the marginal disagreement between the parties in relation to the description of the type of work performed by those employees. Whatever the resolution of that disagreement, employees of Ready Workforce and APG would be covered by the Steggles Beresfield Agreement if employed directly by Bartter. Bartter is also not a small business employer for the purposes of s 306E(1)(c).

• [17] For the purposes of s 306E(1A) of the Act, I am satisfied that the performance of work by employees of Ready Workforce and APG at the Beresfield facility is not or will not be for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour. In forming that view, I have had regard to the matters set out in subsection (7A). In relation to the matters set out in s 306E(7A), I make the following observations:

(a) The evidence does not suggest that Ready Workforce and APG have any substantial involvement in matters relating to the performance of work by their employees working at the Beresfield facility. At most, Bartter and APG say that APG typically controls and directs whether APG employees are promoted or disciplined albeit with input from Bartter and often initiated by Bartter. If that factual position is correct, the involvement of APG in promotion and discipline is a matter that I must take into account, and have taken into account, under s 306E(7A)(a). However, I do not consider that this fact alone weighs significantly in the assessment of whether the performance of work by APG employees is for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour.

(b) The evidence indicates that Bartter supervises and controls the work of employees of Ready Workforce and APG who perform work at the Beresfield facility and is responsible for rostering and assigning tasks to, and the direction and control of, those employees. As I have observed, there is a disagreement as to the degree of involvement of APG in matters of discipline or promotion of its employees. That is a matter which must be, and has been, taken into account for the purposes of s 306E(7A)(b). Again, I do not consider that this fact alone weighs significantly in the assessment of whether the performance of work by APG employees is for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour. Other than that matter, there is no evidence that Ready Workforce and APG, or any person on behalf of Ready Workforce and APG, directs, supervises or controls the employees supplied to Bartter when they perform work.

(c) Employees of Ready Workforce and APG performing work for Bartter at the Beresfield facility use the systems and operate the same plant, equipment and machinery as Bartter employees and work in accordance with Bartter's operational requirements. There is no evidence that the employees use systems, plant or structure of Ready Workforce or APG to perform the work.

(d) There is no evidence that Ready Workforce and APG are or will be subject to industry or professional standards or responsibilities in relation to the work of their employees supplied to perform work for Bartter.

(e) The description of the work performed by the employees set out in the Statements of Agreed Facts indicates that the work undertaken by employees of Ready Workforce and APG at the Beresfield facility is skilled work but does not suggest is properly to be regarded as work of a specialist or professional nature and no party submitted that this is the case.

• [18] Having regard to the considerations referred to in s 306E(7A), it is clear that the performance of work by the employees supplied by Ready Workforce and APG to perform work for Bartter at the Beresfield facility is not and will not be for the provision of a service. Ready Workforce and APG supply labour to Bartter, rather than providing a service.

• [19] In relation to s 306E(2) of the Act, I am not satisfied that it is not fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order sought by the AMIEU. Section 306E(2) indicates that the Commission is required to have regard to the matters listed in subsection (8) in relation to which submissions have been made. No submissions were made by Bartter, Ready Workforce or APG in relation to any of the matters in subsection (8). Accordingly, I am not required to have regard to those matters.

• [20] For these reasons, I am required by s 306E(1) of the Act to make regulated labour hire arrangement orders which apply to employees supplied by Ready Workforce and APG to perform work at the Beresfield facility. I will publish the orders together with this decision, setting out the matters in s 306E(9).

• [21] Section 306E(9)(e)(ii) provides that the day an order will come into force must be the day the order is made or a later day. Ready Workforce and APG requested a period of four weeks be afforded before the orders come into force to permit those entities to make administrative arrangements to ensure appropriate implementation of the requirements which flow from the orders. The AMIEU submits that such a period is not necessary and that Ready Workforce and APG have been aware of the applications for many months. Ready Workforce and APG also requested that the orders commence on a Monday to align with their payroll systems. The orders will come into force on Monday 3 November 2025. I consider that should provide sufficient time to implement the obligations which arise from the orders. No party submitted that the order should specify when it will cease to be in force for the purposes of s 306E(10). Accordingly, the order will also not contain such a specification.

B Swan, National Industrial Officer, appeared for the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union.

L Shanahan, solicitor, of Kingston Reid appeared for Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd.

S Willett, General Manager of IR/ER for RGF Workforce, appeared for Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd.

D Trivedi, General Manager, appeared for Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B