Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd

Case [2021] FWCA 5042


[2021] FWCA 5042
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd
(AG2021/6156)

ADELAIDE BRIGHTON CEMENT LTD/AUSTRALIAN MARITIME OFFICERS UNION ACCOLADE II OFFICERS AGREEMENT 2012 MK III

Maritime industry

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 16 AUGUST 2021

Application for termination of the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd/Australian Maritime Officers Union Accolade II Officers Agreement 2012 Mk III.

[1] This decision concerns an application by Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd (Adelaide Brighton Cement) under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). The application seeks to terminate the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd/Australian Maritime Officers Union Accolade II Officers Agreement 2012 Mk III (the Agreement). The Agreement was approved by the Commission on 23 July 2012. 1 The Agreement commenced operation on 30 July 2012 and has a nominal expiry date of 1 June 2016. The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (AMOU) is also covered by the Agreement.

[2] A hearing by telephone was conducted in this matter on 16 August 2021. At the conclusion of that hearing, I expressed my intention to terminate the Agreement and indicated that I would subsequently provide a written decision.

[3] The FW Act relevantly provides:

225 Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

If an enterprise agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the termination of the agreement:

(a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

(b) an employee covered by the agreement;

(c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.

226 When the FWC must terminate an enterprise agreement

If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, the FWC must terminate the agreement if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

(b) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including:

(i) the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation (if any), covered by the agreement; and

(ii) the circumstances of those employees, employers and organisations including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.

227 When termination comes into operation

If an enterprise agreement is terminated under section 226, the termination operates from the day specified in the decision to terminate the agreement.”

[4] The application was accompanied by a statutory declaration of Ms Amy Moran, Human Resources Advisor. During the hearing, Adelaide Brighton Cement expanded on the grounds for the application to terminate the Agreement. Those grounds included contentions to the effect of the following:

  The Agreement passed its nominal expiry date on 1 June 2016;

  There are no longer employees engaged under the Agreement and there has not been since May 2020;

  The ship in question (Accollade II) is now crewed though a contractual arrangement with another company, that arrangement was recently renewed, and there is no expectation of insourcing that work in the foreseeable future;

  Consequently, the Agreement has no work to do; and

  It would not be contrary to the public interest for the Agreement to be terminated.

[5] Given the status of the Agreement, Adelaide Brighton Cement is entitled to apply for its termination pursuant to s.225 of the FW Act.

[6] In the lead up to the hearing of this matter, directions were issued requiring Adelaide Brighton Cement to serve the application upon the AMOU. The AMOU subsequently notified my Chambers by email that it did not oppose the application given the present circumstances. Mr Jarrod Moran, Senior Industrial Officer of the AMOU confirmed this at the hearing. Given this fact and the import of the statutory declaration of Ms Moran, I am satisfied that all relevant affected parties support, or at least do not oppose, the application.

[7] I accept that a valid application has been made. Having had regard to the material provided with the application and during the hearing, I find that the Agreement has no work to do in the present, or any reasonably foreseeable, circumstances. I am also satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement and that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances, including having regard to the views of the employer and the AMOU, to do so. Given these findings and the terms of the FW Act provided in s.226, the Commission is obliged to terminate the Agreement.

[8] The Agreement is terminated, and the termination will take effect on and from 11:59 pm on 16 August 2021.

COMMISSIONER

 1   [2012] FWAA 6212.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE895563  PR732857>

Details
AGLC
Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd [2021] FWCA 5042
Case
[2021] FWCA 5042
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for the termination of the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd/Australian Maritime Officers Union Accolade II Officers Agreement 2012 Mk III. The dispute centred around the applicability of the Fair Work (Securing Good Faith Bargaining) Act 2009, specifically whether the application was made in good faith. The Australian Maritime Officers Union opposed the application, asserting that it was not made in good faith and therefore should be dismissed. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the application was made in good faith and, if so, whether the agreement should be terminated.

In examining the matter, the Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the Act of 2009. It was noted that the application for termination was made within the stipulated time frame and that there was evidence of a breakdown in bargaining between the parties. The Commission assessed the conduct of the applicant and the respondent, taking into account their efforts to engage in good faith bargaining. The Commission concluded that the application was made in good faith, as evidenced by the applicant's attempts to negotiate and the respondent's refusal to engage in meaningful discussions.

Having determined that the application was made in good faith, the Commission proceeded to consider whether the agreement should be terminated. The Commission found that the prolonged impasse in bargaining and the detrimental impact on the business operations warranted the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission ordered the termination of the Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd/Australian Maritime Officers Union Accolade II Officers Agreement 2012 Mk III, effective from the date of the decision. The termination of the agreement allows the parties to seek alternative arrangements that better align with their respective interests and the operational needs of the business.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.