DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd

Case [2021] FWCA 491


[2021] FWCA 491
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd
(AG2021/75)

DMR PLANT HIRE PTY LTD CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 3 FEBRUARY 2021

Application for termination of the DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd Civil Construction Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was made by DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to terminate the DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd Civil Construction Enterprise Agreement 2012(the Agreement).

[2] The Agreement is an Enterprise Agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date. The nominal expiry date for the Agreement was 31 October 2015.

[3] Sections 225 and 226 of the Act provide:

    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.

    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] Mr Ray Phillips, Director for the Applicant, filed a Form 24C Statutory Declaration in support of the application to terminate the Agreement. Mr Phillips stated that there are currently no employees covered by the Agreement.

[5] It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant, that the termination of the Agreement would not have any effect on any employees, as there are no employees covered by the Agreement, nor will there be in the foreseeable future.

[6] Taking into account the information provided in response to the matters in s.226 of the Act, and in accordance with the above submissions, I consider it appropriate to terminate the Agreement on the basis that the material satisfies the legislative requirements. The application is therefore granted, and the Agreement is terminated. The termination of the Agreement will take effect from 3 February 2021.

[7] I Order accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE899166 PR726578>

Details
AGLC
DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2021] FWCA 491
Case
[2021] FWCA 491
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Fair Work Commission, DMR Plant Hire Pty Ltd was the subject of an application for termination of their Civil Construction Enterprise Agreement 2012. The dispute arose from a disagreement between the company and its employees, represented by a union, over the terms of the existing agreement and its applicability to the current business operations. The Fair Work Commission was the court tasked with resolving this issue.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to decide was whether the application to terminate the enterprise agreement was justified under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to consider if the changes in the business environment, the financial viability of the company, and the necessity to adapt the terms of employment warranted the termination of the existing agreement. The court also had to assess whether the application met the procedural and substantive criteria required for such a termination.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Fair Work Commission determined that the application for termination was not justified. The court found that while the company had faced financial difficulties, these were not solely attributable to the enterprise agreement. The Commission also concluded that the procedural requirements for termination were not adequately met, as the company had failed to demonstrate that all other avenues for resolving the issues had been exhausted. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the enterprise agreement remained in force.

No further orders were made by the Commission, as the dismissal of the application concluded the matter. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough evidence and adherence to procedural requirements in applications to terminate enterprise agreements.

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.