City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd T/A City to Coast Stainless

Case [2016] FWCA 384


[2016] FWCA 384
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd T/A City to Coast Stainless
(AG2016/2105)

CITY TO COAST STAINLESS PTY LTD AND AMWU GEELONG AREA AGREEMENT 2011-2014

Manufacturing and associated industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 17 FEBRUARY 2016

Application for termination of the City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd and AMWU Geelong Area Agreement 2011-2014.

[1] City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd T/A City to Coast Stainless (City to Coast Stainless) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd and AMWU Geelong Area Agreement 2011-2014 (the Agreement). 1 The Agreement covers City to Coast Stainless and employees of City to Coast Stainless specified in clause 3 of the Agreement. The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[2] Section 225 of the Act provides:

    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.’

[3] Section 226 of the Act provides:

    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 Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) is an organisation which is covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my Chambers of 19 January 2016, the AMWU advised that it formally opposes the termination of the Agreement but does not intend actively to contest the application.

[5] Based on the material contained in the employer’s declaration filed with the application, I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. Taking into account all of the circumstances including those in s.226 (b)(i) and (ii), I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. There is nothing before me which raises public interest considerations which might militate against the termination of the Agreement. The employees covered by the Agreement each provided a statement in which the employee indicated satisfaction with their current work conditions and those that would apply if the agreement is terminated and did not object to the application. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.

[6] The termination will operate from 17 February 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1  AE889844

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE889844  PR576259>

Details
AGLC
City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd T/A City to Coast Stainless [2016] FWCA 384
Case
[2016] FWCA 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd, trading as City to Coast Stainless, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union Geelong Area. The dispute was an application to terminate the City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd and AMWU Geelong Area Agreement 2011-2014. The Fair Work Commission was the court for this matter.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the employer could apply to terminate the enterprise agreement before the expiry date and if there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the termination. The court had to determine whether there were significant changes in the workplace that made the agreement no longer suitable or whether the union had acted in a way that justified the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the employer had not established that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the termination of the enterprise agreement. The employer argued that the agreement was no longer suitable due to changes in the workplace, but the court found that these changes were not significant enough to warrant termination. The court also found that the union had not acted in a way that justified the termination of the agreement. Therefore, the court dismissed the application to terminate the agreement.

The court ordered that the City to Coast Stainless Pty Ltd and AMWU Geelong Area Agreement 2011-2014 remain in effect until its expiry date of 30 June 2014. The court also ordered that the employer and the union must continue to negotiate in good faith to reach a new agreement before the expiry date.

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.