Australian Red Cross Society (“Red Cross”)

Case [2021] FWCA 6674


[2021] FWCA 6674
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Australian Red Cross Society (“Red Cross”)
(AG2021/8151)

LADY LAWLEY COTTAGE ENROLLED NURSES AND RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT WORKER CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2011

Health and welfare services

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 12 NOVEMBER 2021

Application for termination of the Lady Lawley Cottage Enrolled Nurses and Residential Support Worker Certified Agreement 2011

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Australian Red Cross Society (“Red Cross”) (the Applicant) for the termination of the Lady Lawley Cottage Enrolled Nurses and Residential Support Worker Certified Agreement 2011 (the Agreement).

[2] This application is made under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[3] This section of the Act allows an employer to apply to the Commission for the termination of an agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.

[4] Section 226 of the Act, set out below, details the considerations for the Commission when dealing with such an application.

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.”

[5] The Applicant has provided in support of its application a statutory declaration from Mr Peter Antal (Mr Antal), People & Culture Manager (NT &WA) for the Applicant.

[6] Mr Antal explains that the Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2014, and that the Applicant does not currently cover any employees under the Agreement. Mr Antal explains that the Agreement covered employees at a facility which closed in 2020 and that all of those employees were made redundant.

[7] The Applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would not be against public interest.

[8] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) being a party to the Agreement, was invited by the Commission to make any submissions in response to the application.

[9] As of the date of this decision, the ANMF has not expressed any views on the application.

Consideration

[10] I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest.

[11] Taking into account the Applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[12] Accordingly, the Lady Lawley Cottage Enrolled Nurses and Residential Support Worker Certified Agreement 2011 is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE407669  PR735742>

Details
AGLC
Australian Red Cross Society (“Red Cross”) [2021] FWCA 6674
Case
[2021] FWCA 6674
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, the Australian Red Cross, sought to terminate the Lady Lawley Cottage Enrolled Nurses and Residential Support Worker Certified Agreement 2011. This agreement governed the employment conditions of enrolled nurses and residential support workers at Lady Lawley Cottage, a nursing home operated by the Red Cross. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard the application.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement could be terminated under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Red Cross argued that the agreement should be terminated due to significant changes in the industry, including the availability of funding, the availability of qualified staff, and the changing nature of the work. The Commission had to consider whether the changes were substantial enough to warrant termination and whether the termination would be in the public interest.

The Fair Work Commission held that the application for termination should be dismissed. The Commission found that while there had been changes in the industry, they did not amount to significant changes that would warrant termination of the agreement. The Commission also found that termination would not be in the public interest, as it would not promote the objects of the Fair Work Act, including the provision of a safety net of minimum wages and conditions. The Commission held that the agreement should remain in force, and the application for termination was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for termination of the agreement, finding that the changes in the industry did not warrant termination and that termination would not be in the public interest.

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.