Cootharinga North Queensland

[2025] FWCA 3457

[2025] FWCA 3457

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.222 - Application for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement

Cootharinga North Queensland

(AG2025/3240)

COOTHARINGA SOCIETY OF NORTH QUEENSLAND (COOTHARINGA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER DURHAM	BRISBANE, 15 OCTOBER 2025

Application for termination of the Cootharinga Society of North Queensland (Cootharinga) Enterprise Agreement 2013

1. On 19 September 2025, Cootharinga North Queensland (Cootharinga) applied to the Commission for the termination of the Cootharinga Society of North Queensland (Cootharinga) Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

1. Sections 222 and 223 of the Act set out the conditions which must be met for an agreement to be terminated by agreement pursuant to s.222 of the Act:

“222 Application for the FWC’s approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement

Application for approval

(1) If a termination of an enterprise agreement has been agreed to, a person covered by the agreement must apply to the FWC for approval of the termination.

Material to accompany the application

(2) The application must be accompanied by any declarations that are required by the procedural rules to accompany the application.

When the application must be made

(3) The application must be made:

(a) within 14 days after the termination is agreed to; or

(b) if in all the circumstances the FWC considers it fair to extend that period—

within such further period as the FWC allows.

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.”

Consideration

1. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement. It was approved by the Commission on 24 January 2014, to operate from 31 January 2014 with a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2016.

1. The Agreement covers the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU).

1. Ms Ramona Zahner, Group General Manager - PLC, on behalf of the Applicant, filed a Form F24A Statutory Declaration. The Statutory Declaration included information outlining the steps taken by the employer to ensure that the employees covered by the Agreement were given a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they wanted to approve the termination and steps taken to notify all employees about the vote.

1. The Statutory Declaration also indicated that 264 employees are covered by the

Agreement, and 161 cast a valid vote, and 105 voted to approve the termination.

1. Additionally, I sought the views of the AWU and employees covered by the Agreement.

1. The AWU advised that “in view of the fact that a majority of employees have voted to approve the termination of this Agreement, we have no submissions to make in this matter.”

1. Only one response was received from an employee who stated:

   
   “1. The workers did not ask for the termination of Cootharinga EBA 2013 but initiated by CPL explaining that the company and its workers would be better off moving to the SCHADS Awards Agreement subjected to the interpretation of an independent party knowledgeable in labor laws which was not afforded prior to encouraged to vote online.

   2. We were not sent by post of the proposed SCHADS Awards Agreement but only links in our work mobile phone which was very frustrating to open on my phone and not working.

   3. There was no assurance of A 38 hour-week as stated in Cootharinga EBA 2013 but implied according to a CPL representative delegated in the Q and A session in SCHADS Awards Agreement.

   4. In fairness to CPL, we were given the opportunity to ask questions regarding the changes in our employment. How can you ask questions when you did not even receive a copy of the proposed SCHADS Awards Agreement in the first place? These are pages and pages of legal documents that need to be studied by our union representative assuring us of its fairness.

   5. The time frame leading to the voting process was done hastily. As to the matter of urgency, why? We were even paid if we attend the Q and A session prior to voting which I think is unethical.”

1. Whilst the above response highlights some frustrations with the process, it does not raise any reasonable ground for me to conclude that termination of the Agreement has not been agreed. Having considered all of the material before the Commission including the Form F24A Statutory Declaration and its annexures, I am satisfied that the statutory tests have been met.

1. In accordance with s 224 of the Act, the termination of the Agreement will come into effect from 11 November 2025.

1. I order accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE406504  PR792681>