Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Ceva Logistics Summary

[2018] FWCA 2134

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Ceva Logistics

(AG2018/1173)

CEVA Logistics & NUW GDT Carole Park, Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2014

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 13 APRIL 2018

Termination of the CEVA Logistics & NUW GDT Carole Park Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2014.

On 27 March 2018, Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Ceva Logistics applied for the termination of the CEVA Logistics & NUW GDT Carole Park Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

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, the Agreement is terminated.

The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Ceva Logistics v National Union of Workers Queensland Branch, involved the employer seeking to terminate the 2014 CEVA Logistics & NUW GDT Carole Park Queensland Enterprise Agreement. The parties had entered into the enterprise agreement, which was registered by the Fair Work Commission, but the employer sought to terminate the agreement due to significant financial losses and operational challenges. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to decide whether the employer had met the criteria for terminating the enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue the Commission was required to determine was whether the employer had provided sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the enterprise agreement. The employer argued that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to substantial financial losses and operational difficulties. The union contended that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify termination and that the agreement should remain in place. The Commission had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and decide whether the employer had met the threshold for terminating the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the enterprise agreement. The Commission noted that the employer had experienced financial losses and operational challenges, but these were not sufficient to warrant the termination of the agreement. The Commission held that the employer had not met the threshold for termination and that the enterprise agreement should remain in place. The employer's application to terminate the agreement was dismissed.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the 2014 CEVA Logistics & NUW GDT Carole Park Queensland Enterprise Agreement remains in effect. The employer is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement, and the union retains its rights and obligations under the agreement. The decision reinforces the importance of providing sufficient evidence to justify the termination of an enterprise agreement and highlights the need for employers to carefully consider the implications of seeking to terminate an agreement.

Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Ceva Logistics

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established