[2016] FWCA 1006 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2016/2680) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 13 May 2016 [[2016] FWCFB 2546] for result of appeal.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Damien Martin
(AG2016/2242)

Security services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	MELBOURNE, 15 FEBRUARY 2016

Termination of the United Security Enterprises - Employee Collective Agreement 2012-2014.

[1] On 3 February 2016, Mr Damien Martin made an application to terminate the United Security Enterprises – Employee Collective Agreement 2012-2014 1 (the Agreement) under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

[3] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 AE897434.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Damien Martin involved the termination of the United Security Enterprises - Employee Collective Agreement 2012-2014. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The respondent, United Security Enterprises, sought to terminate the existing collective agreement, while the applicant, Damien Martin, representing the employees, opposed the termination. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the employer had the right to terminate the agreement under the applicable provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission examined the legal framework governing the termination of collective agreements, focusing on section 227 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The tribunal evaluated the employer's claim that the agreement should be terminated due to significant changes in the business environment and the inability to reach a new agreement with the employees. The court also considered the potential impact on the employees and whether the employer had acted in good faith and followed the necessary procedural requirements. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated the necessity for termination and that the proposed changes could be addressed through negotiation rather than abrupt termination.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission ruled against the employer's application to terminate the collective agreement. The tribunal determined that the employer had not sufficiently justified the termination and had not demonstrated the impossibility of reaching a new agreement through continued negotiation. The decision emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining and the need for employers to exhaust all reasonable avenues for reaching a new agreement before seeking to terminate an existing one. The tribunal's ruling upheld the rights of employees under the existing agreement and mandated continued negotiations to address any changes in the business environment.

Damien Martin

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established