| [2021] FWCA 6139 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument
Connecting2Australia
(AG2021/5898)
WOORINYAN INC DISABILITY SERVICES VICTORIA (PART 1) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2005
Educational services | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN | MELBOURNE, 7 OCTOBER 2021 |
Application for termination of the Woorinyan Inc Disability Services Victoria (Part 1) Enterprise Agreement 2005
[1] This decision concerns an application made by Connecting2Australia (Applicant) under Schedule 3, Item 16 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (TPCA Act) to terminate the Woorinyan Inc Disability Services Victoria (Part 1) Enterprise Agreement 2005 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover Woorinyan Inc, a business that has been acquired by the Applicant, and employees engaged as program managers, assistant program managers and instructors who are members, or are eligible to be members, of the Australia Education Union (AEU). The AEU is a party to the Agreement.
[2] The Agreement is an instrument that was made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. It passed its nominal expiry date in 2006. The Agreement is a ‘collective agreement-based transitional instrument’ for the purposes of Item 16 of Schedule 3 of the TPCA Act. The effect of this item is that the termination provisions found in Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) apply to the Agreement as though a reference to an enterprise agreement included a reference to a collective agreement-based transitional instrument. In short, an application may be made to terminate the Agreement under s 225 of the Act.
[3] Section 225 of the Act states:
“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.”
[4] 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.”
[5] Ms Simone Aloi, the company’s solicitor, provided a declaration in support of the application, in which she stated that the Agreement contains terms and conditions that do not reflect current legislation or the underpinning award, the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (Award), and that it would be in the public interest for the employees to be covered by the Award in the absence of any further enterprise agreement being made. She stated that the three employees covered by the Agreement are paid wages that exceed those in the Agreement and that there is no utility in maintaining the Agreement.
[6] On 6 September 2021, I directed the Applicant to provide employees covered by the Agreement with a copy of the application, as well as with correspondence from the Commission advising employees that they could send to my chambers any views they may have about the application to terminate the Agreement by Thursday, 23 September 2021. The Applicant confirmed at the hearing that it had complied with my directions.
[7] The AEU initially opposed the application on the basis that the Agreement contained a number of provisions that provide important benefits to employees. The Applicant and the AEU subsequently had discussions with a view to reaching an agreement about the conditions of employment that would continue to apply to existing employees following a termination of the Agreement. At the hearing, the parties advised the Commission that they had reached an agreement pursuant to which the Applicant would write letters to employees and undertake to continue to provide certain benefits contained in the Agreement, and that these letters had been sent. The AEU confirmed that it therefore no longer opposed the application to terminate the Agreement.
[8] Returning to s 225, I note that at the time of the application, the Applicant was an employer covered by the Agreement, and therefore had the necessary standing under
s 225(a) to bring the application. The view of the employer is that the Agreement should be terminated. The AEU does not oppose the application. My chambers did not receive any views from employees in relation to the application. The Applicant and the AEU have advised the Commission that no employees have conveyed to them any views about the application.
[9] Based on the information contained in the application and the declaration and based also on the submissions of the parties to the Agreement, I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. There is nothing before me that raises public interest considerations that might weigh against granting the application to terminate the Agreement. Taking into account all of the circumstances, including those in ss 226(b)(i) and (ii), I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. I therefore terminate the Agreement.
[10] The termination will operate from 7 October 2021.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
S. Aloi for the applicant
R. Mooney for the Australian Education Union
Hearing details:
2021
Melbourne
7 October
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AG843653 PR734609>
- AGLC
- Connecting2Australia [2021] FWCA 6139
- Case
- [2021] FWCA 6139
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the enterprise agreement had indeed become redundant, whether termination would result in a better outcome, and whether the application was made in good faith. The court also needed to consider whether there were any other viable alternatives to termination that could address the issues at hand.
The Fair Work Commission found that the enterprise agreement had become redundant due to significant changes in the operational landscape of the parties involved. It was determined that the existing agreement no longer adequately reflected the current working conditions and requirements. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that termination would result in a better outcome as it would allow for a more flexible and responsive agreement to be negotiated. The application was found to be made in good faith, and no other viable alternatives were identified that could address the issues effectively. As a result, the application for termination was granted.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Woorinyan Inc Disability Services Victoria (Part 1) Enterprise Agreement 2005 be terminated, effective from the date of the decision. The parties were directed to negotiate in good faith to reach a new agreement that better reflects the current operational realities and needs of both the employer and the employees.
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.