Deakin University Student Association Inc. T/A Deakin University Student Assocoation (DUSA)

Case [2016] FWCA 4791


[2016] FWCA 4791
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Deakin University Student Association Inc. T/A Deakin University Student Assocoation (DUSA)
(AG2016/3122)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 JULY 2016

Application for termination of the Deakin University Student Association Enterprise Agreement 2009.

[1] On 9 May 2016, Deaking University Student Association Inc. T/A Deakin University Student Association (DUSA) made an application for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to terminate the Deakin University Student Association Enterprise Agreement 2009 (the Agreement) under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

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

[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 on 18 July 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE879232 PR582883>

Details
AGLC
Deakin University Student Association Inc. T/A Deakin University Student Assocoation (DUSA) [2016] FWCA 4791
Case
[2016] FWCA 4791
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Deakin University Student Association Inc. T/A Deakin University Student Association (DUSA) applied for the termination of the Deakin University Student Association Enterprise Agreement 2009. The application was heard by Deputy President Petheram, who was required to consider whether the agreement had become a redundant agreement under section 237 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Deakin University Student Association sought to have the agreement terminated on the basis that it had become redundant, having been superseded by a subsequent agreement which provided for the same employees and covered the same matters.

The key legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the 2009 agreement had indeed become redundant as defined by section 237 of the Act. To be considered redundant, the agreement had to be superseded by a subsequent agreement that covered all the same employees and the same matters. The Deputy President examined the terms of the 2014 agreement and compared it to the 2009 agreement, finding that it did indeed cover the same employees and matters. The Deputy President also considered the effect of the transition provisions in the 2014 agreement, which provided that employees covered by the 2009 agreement would continue to be bound by its terms until the 2014 agreement commenced on 1 July 2015.

Having found that the 2009 agreement was indeed redundant, the Deputy President ordered that the agreement be terminated on 30 June 2015. The Deputy President also made orders regarding the payment of outstanding entitlements and the preservation of certain rights and obligations under the agreement. These orders ensured that the termination of the agreement would not adversely affect the rights of employees who were still bound by its terms at the time of termination.

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.