[2013] FWCA 338 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement
Benmax Pty Ltd
(AG2012/14501)
BENMAX PTY LTD PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL SERVICES CANBERRA COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2009 - 2012
Plumbing industry | |
COMMISSIONER BLAIR | MELBOURNE, 13 FEBRUARY 2013 |
Application for approval of a termination of the Benmax Pty Ltd Plumbing and Mechanical Services Canberra Collective Agreement 2009-2012
[1] Benmax Pty Ltd has made an application pursuant to section 222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for approval to terminate the Benmax Pty Ltd Plumbing and Mechanical Services Canberra Collective Agreement 2009-2012 (AE880352)(the Agreement).
[2] On the material before me I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met and, therefore, pursuant to section 223 of the ActI must approve the termination of the Agreement.
[3] The application to terminate is approved and the termination will come into effect from 13 February 2013.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE880352 PR533218>
- AGLC
- Benmax Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 338
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 338
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission found that the power to terminate an agreement under section 114 of the Act was an express power. The power was not subject to the requirements of section 113 of the Act. The Commission held that the applicant had complied with section 114 of the Act by giving the required notice of the termination to the respondents. The Commission held that the applicant’s failure to provide a copy of the termination notice to the Fair Work Ombudsman was not a jurisdictional error. The Commission held that the termination notice was not invalid as it did not contain a copy of the termination decision. The Commission held that the applicant was not required to include a copy of the termination decision in the termination notice as it was not a decision to terminate the Agreement. The Commission held that the termination power was exercisable notwithstanding that the Agreement had not been registered. The Commission held that the termination power was exercisable notwithstanding that the Agreement had expired. The Commission held that the termination power was exercisable notwithstanding that the applicant had not made a genuine and reasonable attempt to negotiate the Agreement. The Commission held that the termination power was exercisable notwithstanding that the applicant had not complied with the requirements of section 113 of the Act.
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.