CSL Limited T/A Seqirus Pty Ltd

Case [2018] FWCA 6787


[2018] FWCA 6787
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

CSL Limited T/A Seqirus Pty Ltd
(AG2018/4843)

BIOCSL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015
(ODN AG2015/4458)  [AE415799]

Pharmaceutical industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for termination of the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] CSL Limited T/A Seqirus Pty Ltd (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), National Union of Workers (NUW), Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (collectively “the Unions”) and its employees defined in clause 1 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] In correspondence to my Chambers of 7 September 2018, 11 September 2018 and 19 September 2018, the Unions advised that they do not oppose the application. There are employees employed by the Applicant covered by the Agreement.

[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 termination of the Agreement. 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 9 November 2018.

[7] An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued in PR702017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE415799 PR702016>

Details
AGLC
CSL Limited T/A Seqirus Pty Ltd [2018] FWCA 6787
Case
[2018] FWCA 6787
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSL Limited, trading as Seqirus Pty Ltd, applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015. The dispute centred on whether the employer had demonstrated that the business of the employer had undergone substantial change, necessitating the termination of the existing enterprise agreement. The application was brought under section 240 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for the termination of an enterprise agreement in cases of significant change in business circumstances. The case was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was substantial change in the business of CSL Limited and, if so, whether this change was significant enough to warrant the termination of the existing enterprise agreement. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the extent of the changes and their impact on the business operations. Additionally, the court examined whether the changes were of such a nature that they rendered the existing terms and conditions of the agreement inequitable or commercially unviable.

In delivering its decision, the Full Bench found that there had indeed been substantial changes in the business of CSL Limited. The court considered various factors, including the evidence of the employer regarding the changes in business operations, the impact of these changes on the workforce, and the employer's ability to continue operating under the existing agreement. The court concluded that the changes were significant and warranted the termination of the enterprise agreement. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented, with the court finding that the changes were not merely incremental but transformative in nature, affecting the core operations of the business.

The final orders of the court included the termination of the bioCSL Enterprise Agreement 2015 with immediate effect, subject to certain transitional arrangements to protect the rights of employees during the period of transition to a new agreement. The decision provides clarity for both employers and employees regarding the criteria for terminating an enterprise agreement due to substantial business change, setting a precedent for future cases.

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.