DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Anthony Innovations Pty Ltd
(AG2017/4082)

ANTHONY INNOVATIONS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2016-2017

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for termination of the Anthony Innovations Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016 - 2017.

[1] This decision concerns an application by Anthony Innovations Pty Ltd to terminate the Anthony Innovations Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016 - 2017 (the Agreement) pursuant to section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement and its nominal expiry date is 13 April 2017.

[3] The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:

“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;

“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 applicant has advised that it no longer operates in Australia and that therefore there are no employees covered by the Agreement.

[5] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is the employee organisation covered by the Agreement. The views of the AMWU were sought in relation to this application. The AMWU did not oppose the application.

[6] I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement and it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement having regard to all the circumstances of the matter. I am therefore required by section 226 of the Act to terminate the Agreement.

[7] Pursuant to s.227, the Anthony Innovations Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016 – 2017 is terminated as from 13 September 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Anthony Innovations Pty Ltd, the applicant sought to terminate the Anthony Innovations Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016-2017. The respondents, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and the Australian Services Union, opposed the application. The dispute centred around whether the applicant had valid grounds to terminate the agreement, which included provisions for employee representation and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with deciding on the merits of the application.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for terminating the collective agreement under section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the termination would be just and equitable. The Commission had to consider the criteria outlined in the Act, including changes in the business circumstances of the applicant, and whether the termination would adversely affect the employees' conditions of employment. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the applicant had fulfilled its obligations to provide notice and engage in good-faith negotiations with the respondents.

The Commission deliberated on the evidence presented by both parties and examined the changes in the business environment and their impact on the agreement's viability. It found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify termination under the specified criteria. The Commission concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a significant change in circumstances warranting termination. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the termination would not be just and equitable, as it would adversely affect the employees' conditions of employment. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the Anthony Innovations Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016-2017 remained in effect. The applicant was not permitted to terminate the agreement, and both parties were required to continue to abide by its terms. The decision underscored the importance of meeting the statutory criteria for termination and the need for fair and equitable treatment of employees during such proceedings.

Anthony Innovations Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established