[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 case of Damien Martin involved the termination of the United Security Enterprises - Employee Collective Agreement 2012-2014, with Damien Martin being one of the employees affected by the termination. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining the validity of the termination and its implications for the employees.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the procedural fairness of the termination process and whether the employer had complied with the necessary legislative requirements. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the employer had followed the correct procedures as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly concerning the consultation and notification requirements. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the employer's actions constituted a genuine termination of the agreement or if it was an attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process.

In its reasoning, the court thoroughly reviewed the employer's actions and found that the termination process was flawed. The employer had failed to adequately consult with the employees and provide the necessary notifications as required by the Fair Work Act. This procedural shortcoming was deemed significant, leading the court to conclude that the termination was not valid. As a result, the court reinstated the collective agreement, ensuring that the employees' rights and protections were restored. The employer was also ordered to comply with the agreement's terms and to adhere to the proper procedural requirements in the future.

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