| [2019] FWCA 1592 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2019/454)
CIVMEC CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING PTY LTD YANDI SUSTAINING PROJECT CFMEU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2013
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS | PERTH, 13 MARCH 2019 |
Application for termination of the Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd Yandi Sustaining Project CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013.
[1] This decision concerns an application made by Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the termination of the Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd Yandi Sustaining Project CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013 (the Agreement).
[2] This application is made under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[3] This section of the Act allows an employer to apply to the Commission for the termination of an agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.
[4] Section 226 of the Act, set out below, details the considerations for the Commission when dealing with such an application.
“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.”
[5] The Applicant has provided in support of its application a statutory declaration from Mr Daniel Flight (Mr Flight) who is the Senior HR/IR Advisor for the Applicant.
[6] Mr Flight explains that the Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 28 February 2015, and that no employee is covered by the Agreement as the Applicant’s work at the project has ceased.
[7] The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) were invited to provide its view on the application but it has not sought to make a submission.
[8] The Applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.
Consideration
[9] I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest.
[10] Taking into account the views of the employer and accepting the Applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, which has not been challenged by the CFMMEU, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.
[11] Accordingly, the Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd Yandi Sustaining Project CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013, is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE403242 PR705734>
- AGLC
- Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FWCA 1592
- Case
- [2019] FWCA 1592
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues primarily revolved around the procedural correctness of the application and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Civmec's application complied with the procedural requirements for submitting an application to terminate an enterprise agreement and whether the application was made within the stipulated timeframe. The court also needed to examine if there was any procedural unfairness or procedural impropriety in the way the application was handled by the Fair Work Commission.
The court found that the application was procedurally sound and met the statutory requirements for termination. The court emphasised that the application was submitted within the prescribed period and followed the correct procedures. The decision highlighted that the Fair Work Commission had the jurisdiction to hear the application and that there was no procedural unfairness. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of Civmec, affirming the validity of the application and allowing the matter to proceed to the merits of the termination.
The court's decision confirmed the procedural validity of the application and paved the way for further proceedings to determine the merits of the application for termination.
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.