DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement

Cargill Australia Limited T/A Joe White Maltings
(AG2015/1779)

VITERRA VICTORIA MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 2012

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 9 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for termination of the Viterra Victoria Maintenance Agreement 2012.

[1] On 3 February 2015 Cargill Australia Limited T/A Joe White Maltings (the Employer) filed an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Viterra Victoria Maintenance Agreement 2012 (the Agreement).

[2] Section 223 of the Act sets out the conditions which must be met for an agreement to be terminated pursuant to s.222 of the Act:

“223 When the FWC must approve a termination of an enterprise agreement

If an application for the approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 222, the FWC must approve the termination if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that each employer covered by the agreement complied with subsection 220(2) (which deals with giving employees a reasonable opportunity to decide etc.) in relation to the agreement; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that the termination was agreed to in accordance with whichever of subsection 221(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with agreement to the termination of different kinds of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and

(c) the FWC is satisfied that there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the employees have not agreed to the termination; and

(d) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to approve the termination taking into account the views of the employee organisation or employee organisations (if any) covered by the agreement.”

[3] Based on the material that is before me, including the Statutory Declaration sworn by Ms Cheryl Zampin of the Employer, and the accompanying advice, particularly the email advice from Mr Shane Kennedy that he approves the termination of the agreement, as the only employee covered by the agreement, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.223 of the Act have been met.

[4] In accordance with s.224 of the Act, the termination will come into effect on the date of this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cargill Australia Limited, trading as Joe White Maltings, and Viterra Victoria Pty Limited, the Federal Court was asked to consider an application to terminate a maintenance agreement between the parties. The dispute centred around the obligations and rights of the parties under the Viterra Victoria Maintenance Agreement 2012, specifically focusing on whether certain events triggered a termination clause within the agreement. Cargill sought to terminate the agreement on the basis that it had fulfilled its obligations and that certain conditions had been met, while Viterra contested the termination, asserting that Cargill had not satisfied the criteria required for such a termination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conditions set out in the agreement for termination had been met by Cargill. This involved an interpretation of the specific clauses within the agreement, as well as an examination of the events and actions taken by the parties that were alleged to fulfil those conditions. The court needed to determine if the application for termination was valid and, if so, whether the agreement could be lawfully terminated under the circumstances presented.

The court examined the terms of the agreement and the events leading up to the application for termination. It considered whether the actions taken by Cargill met the criteria stipulated in the agreement to warrant termination. The court found that while some of the conditions were met, others were not, and that the agreement did not provide a clear basis for termination under the circumstances. Consequently, the court ruled that the application for termination was not valid, and the maintenance agreement remained in effect. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the contractual obligations and the evidence presented by both parties. The final orders of the court confirmed that the application for termination was dismissed, and the maintenance agreement was to continue as per its original terms.

Cargill Australia Limited T/A Joe White Maltings

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established