Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd

[2020] FWCA 6446

[2020] FWCA 6446

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2020/3331)

ATLAS COPCO AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (KALGOORLIE) COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET	PERTH, 8 DECEMBER 2020

Application for termination of the Atlas Copco Australia Pty. Limited (Kalgoorlie) Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd (Atlas) has made an application (Application) to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to terminate the Atlas Copco Australia Pty. Limited (Kalgoorlie) Collective Agreement 2013 (Agreement) pursuant to section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

[2] The Agreement was approved by Senior Deputy President Watson pursuant to section 185 of the FW Act, on 9 January 2014 and, commenced operation on 16 January 2014. The Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 31 October 2015.

[3] The parties to the Agreement are Atlas and employees who are employed as Service Technicians or Apprentices who work in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia (Employees).

[4] There are no organisations covered by the Agreement.

[5] In support of the Application, Atlas filed a statutory declaration from Ms Fiona Halliday, Human Resources Business Partner (Halliday Declaration).

Background

[6] Atlas primarily sells compressors and compressed air solutions.

[7] There are currently no Employees covered by the Agreement, with the last Employee covered by the Agreement having left Atlas on 2 October 2020.

[8] Atlas does not propose to engage Employees under this Agreement in the future, but wish to employ Service Technicians in the future.

Legislation

[9] Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 2-4 of the FW Act sets out the mechanism by which an enterprise agreement may be terminated after the agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[10] Section 225 of the FW Act provides that:

“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.”

[11] As the Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date and Atlas is an employer covered by the Agreement, I find that Atlas has standing to make the Application pursuant to section 225(a) of the FW Act.

[12] Section 226 of the FW Act states:

“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.”

Is it contrary to the public interest to termination the Agreement?

[13] Section 226(a) requires the FWC to be satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement.

[14] This requires the FWC to consider how the termination of the Agreement might foreseeably affect the public as a whole, such as the impact on the achievement or otherwise of the various objects of the Act, employment levels, inflation and the maintenance of proper industrial standards. 1

[15] The object of the FW Act is set out in section 3 of the FW Act, as follows:

“3. Object of this Act

The object of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians by:

…

(b) ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards, modern awards and national minimum wage orders;

…

(f) achieving productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise level collective bargaining underpinned by simple good faith bargaining obligations and clear rules governing industrial action;

…”

[16] The specific objects in section 171 of the FW Act inform how the general object in section 3 of the FW Act is to be satisfied in the context of matters dealt with in Part 2-4 of the FW Act:

“171. Objects of this Part

The objects of this Part are:

(a)  to provide a simple, flexible and fair framework that enables collective bargaining in good faith, particularly at the enterprise level, for enterprise agreements that deliver productivity benefits; and

(b)  to enable the FWC to facilitate good faith bargaining and the making of enterprise agreements, including through:

(i) making bargaining orders; and

(ii) dealing with disputes where the bargaining representatives request assistance; and

(iii) ensuring that applications to the FWC for approval of enterprise agreements are dealt with without delay.”

[17] The ascertainment of what is not in the public interest does not involve the mere identification of a consequence of the termination of the agreement that is arguably contrary to the public interest. The ascertainment of the public interest may involve balancing countervailing public interests. 2

[18] There is no positive onus on an applicant to persuade the FWC that there are positive benefits to the public interest arising from the termination. In Geelong Wool Combing Ltd (AIRC) 5 September 2003, Commissioner Wheelan said:

“… the Commission must be persuaded that termination is contrary to the public interest [and] in the absence of any effect of termination which is contrary to the public interest it is not necessary to persuade the Commission that there are positive benefits to the public interest arising from the termination.”

[19] The public interest is distinct in nature from the interests of those covered by the agreement. The views of those covered by an agreement may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion if they shed light on the effect of the termination on public interest but those views should not be given any independent weight. 3

[20] Atlas submits that there are no matters contrary to the public interest in terminating the Agreement. In fact Atlas submit that given the age of the Agreement the termination is consistent with the object of the FW Act to ensure fair and relevant terms and conditions of employment. Atlas have also indicated an intention to engage in collective bargaining for a new Agreement if and when it employs Service Technicians in the future, consistent with the objects of the FW Act.

[21] Based on the submissions of Atlas I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement.

What are the views of the Employees covered by the Agreement?

[22] Atlas submits that there are no longer Employees performing work under the Agreement.

What are the views of the Employee Organisation covered by the Agreement?

[23] There are no Employee Organisations covered by the Agreement.

What are the views of the Employer covered by the Agreement?

[24] Atlas has made an application to terminate the Agreement as there are no longer any Employees performing work under the Agreement.

What are the circumstances of the Employee Organisation covered by the Agreement?

[25] There are no Employee Organisations covered by the Agreement.

What are the circumstances of the Employer covered by the Agreement?

[26] Atlas wish to have the Agreement terminated because the Agreement is past its nominal expiry date, does not apply to any Employees and they are presently unable to negotiate a new agreement.

Is it appropriate to terminate the Agreement taking into all the circumstances?

[27] In assessing the views and circumstances of the parties it is important to remember that:

“Taking into account the views and circumstances of the parties involves far more than an expression of their views in support or opposition to termination. It should involve a reason for their views and the validity of their concerns.” 4

[28] I am satisfied that views of Atlas that the Agreement should be terminated are validly held.

Conclusion

[29] For the reasons enunciated above, I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement. Based on the submissions of Atlas, the Agreement is no longer relevant. 

[30] Taking into account all the circumstances, including the views and circumstances of Atlas, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[31] Accordingly, the Agreementis terminated. The termination is to take effect on and from the date of this Decision. An Order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this Decision. 5

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   Re Kellogg Brown and Root, Bass Strait (Esso) Onshore/Offshore Facilities Certified Agreement 2000 (2005) 139 IR 34, 40 – 41.

 2   Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd & Ors and Esso Australia Ltd (2005) 139 IR 34 referred to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Queensland Electricity Commission; Ex parte Electrical Trades Union of Australia (1987) 61 ALJR 393.

 3   Ibid.

 4   Energy Resources Australia Ltd v Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union[2010] FWA 2434, [16].

 5   PR725151.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE406286  PR725028>