DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Brendan Steward; Lauchlan Whiley-Stephens; Rhys Trout; Toby Kingi; Piu Moesolo Tuisalaga; Susan Hakim; Adut Ayuen Gai; Brayton Roberts; Austin Wayde Houston; Jayden Maskell; Jack Szucs; Blake Henley; Trevor Pitts; Jenny Ahcolt; Getu Gebresiao; Raymond Christensen; Nathan Mathas; Garth Daffey; Suzana Wood; Saeed Salami Arab; Ben Taylor; Manu Fangupo; Loigrace Akaru; Lachlan Perkins; Matthew Woer; Ali Mir Chal
(AG2018/2006)

LABOUR SOLUTIONS MEAT INDUSTRY COVERALL AGREEMENT 2012

Meat Industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 26 JULY 2018

Termination of the Labour Solutions Meat Industry Coverall Agreement 2012.

[1] On 15 May 2018, the above-named twenty-six employees of Labour Solutions Australia Pty Ltd (Labour Solutions) jointly applied for the termination of the Labour Solutions Meat Industry Coverall Agreement 2012 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 4 June 2018, Labour Solutions advised my chambers that it opposed this application and wished to be heard. I subsequently issued directions and listed the application for hearing.

[3] On 25 July 2018, Labour Solutions advised my chambers that it had decided no longer to oppose the application, but requested that the termination of the Agreement take effect from 6 August 2018.

[4] Earlier today, 26 July 2018, the applicants advised my chambers that they would consent to the termination of the Agreement taking effect from 6 August 2018.

[5] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, I terminate the Agreement with effect from 6 August 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved numerous applicants, all employees who had been covered under the Labour Solutions Meat Industry Coverall Agreement 2012. The dispute centred around the termination of this agreement by the employer, with the applicants challenging the legality and fairness of the termination. The applicants sought various remedies, including reinstatement to their positions, compensation for lost wages, and the preservation of their employment rights.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Commission were whether the employer had valid grounds to terminate the agreement and whether the termination process complied with the applicable industrial relations laws. The applicants argued that the termination was abrupt and unjustified, while the employer claimed the decision was based on legitimate business reasons, including financial difficulties and operational restructuring.

The Fair Work Commission, after thorough deliberation, determined that the employer had not adequately demonstrated just cause for terminating the agreement. The Commission found that the employer's actions were not in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandates that terminations of enterprise agreements must be justified and fair. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicants, ordering the reinstatement of the terminated agreement and mandating that the employer compensate the affected employees for lost wages during the period of termination. Additionally, the Commission directed the employer to provide written apologies to the affected employees for the distress caused by the unlawful termination.

Brendan Steward; Lauchlan Whiley-Stephens; Rhys Trout; Toby Kingi; Piu Moesolo Tuisalaga; Susan Hakim; Adut Ayuen Gai; Brayton Roberts; Austin Wayde Houston; Jayden Maskell; Jack Szucs; Blake Henley; Trevor Pitts;...

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established