| [2015] FWCA 8219 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd
(AG2015/5334)
BP REFINERY (BULWER ISLAND) LABORATORY EMPLOYEES AGREEMENT 2011
Oil and gas industry | |
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 27 NOVEMBER 2015 |
Application for termination of the BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Laboratory Employees Agreement 2011.
[1] On 19 October 2015 BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd (the Applicant) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for termination of the BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Laboratory Employees Agreement 2011 (the Agreement) after its nominal expiry date.
[2] The Agreement was originally approved by a decision of Fair Work Australia (as the Commission was then known) on 26 April 2012. The Agreement commenced on 3 May 2012, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, and its nominal expiry date was 1 December 2014. The Agreement was originally made by It has been made by BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd.
[3] The Act outlines the steps to be taken in terminating an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date 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;
(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.
[4] The Applicant provided material in support of its application and evidence to support the matters under s.226 of the Act. In addition, a hearing was held on 25 November 2015 to hear further submissions from the Applicant in support of its application.
[5] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, was covered by this Agreement in accordance with s.201(2) of the Act.
[6] The Australian Workers’ Union does not oppose this agreement being terminated.
[7] I am satisfied the Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date and that the application for termination of the Agreement was lodged by an employer covered by the Agreement.
[8] Being satisfied that the Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, was lodged by an employer covered by the Agreement, and taking into account the material provided relevant to s.226 of the Act, I must terminate the Agreement. The application to terminate the Agreement is approved. The Agreement is terminated with effect from 27 November 2015.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE893509 PR574482>
- AGLC
- BP Refinery (Bulwer Island) Pty Ltd [2015] FWCA 8219
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 8219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The commission considered several key factors in reaching its decision. It examined the definition of "good faith" in the Fair Work Act and whether the company had acted in good faith when proposing the termination. Additionally, it assessed the impact of technological advancements on the workforce, including the potential for job losses and the implications for employee retraining and reskilling. The commission also took into account the obligations of both parties under the agreement, including the duty to consult and negotiate in good faith.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the commission concluded that the company had not acted in good faith when proposing the termination of the agreement. The commission found that the company had not adequately consulted with the union and had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the changes were necessary and unavoidable. As a result, the application for termination was dismissed. The commission ordered that both parties must resume negotiations in good faith to reach a new agreement that reflects the current operational realities of the refinery.
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.