Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club Ltd T/A Ettalong Bowling Club

Case [2022] FWCA 1081


[2022] FWCA 1081

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club Ltd T/A Ettalong Bowling Club

(AG2022/795)

Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club’s Enterprise Agreement 2017

Licensed and registered clubs

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 28 MARCH 2022

Application for termination of the Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club’s Enterprise Agreement 2017

  1. An application has been made by Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club Ltd (Applicant) for the termination of the Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club’s Enterprise Agreement 2017 (Agreement/ EBA).

  1. The application is made under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act), which allows for a party to apply to the Commission to terminate an enterprise agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.

  1. Relevantly, s.226 of the Act reads:

“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”.

  1. The Applicant employer has provided, in support of its termination application, a statutory declaration and Form F24C – Declaration in relation to termination of an enterprise agreement after the nominal expiry date from Mr Tim McGavin, CEO Ettalong Bowling Club. The statutory declaration included an explanation of the steps taken by the Applicant to consult with employees regarding the potential termination of the Agreement. Mr McGavin outlined that the Applicant had expressed an intention to honour rates above the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2020 (the Award) until the Award rates caught up to the rates of pay provided for in the Agreement.

  1. Mr McGavin submitted in the Form F24C – Declaration in relation to termination of an enterprise agreement after the nominal expiry date that the conditions in the Award are more favourable than the Agreement, particularly in relation to shift penalties and breaks. Further Mr McGavin conceded that employees would financially be better off working under the conditions of the Award rather than the Agreement.

Consideration

  1. I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. Taking into account the views of the Applicant, and its relevant employees, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. Accordingly, the Agreement is terminated and pursuant to s.227 of the Act, the termination takes effect on and from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE424320  PR739752>

Details
AGLC
Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club Ltd T/A Ettalong Bowling Club [2022] FWCA 1081
Case
[2022] FWCA 1081
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club Ltd T/A Ettalong Bowling Club applied for termination of the Enterprise Agreement 2017. The club argued that it had experienced significant financial difficulties, and the agreement's terms had exacerbated its financial instability. The application was opposed by the employees, represented by the Retail and Hospitality Union of Australia.

The central legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the financial hardship faced by the club warranted the termination of the Enterprise Agreement. The club contended that its financial situation had deteriorated due to various factors, including a decline in membership and revenue, and the agreement's terms had compounded this situation. The union argued that the club's financial issues were not solely due to the agreement and that there were other contributing factors. The Commission needed to determine if the financial hardship was primarily caused by the agreement's terms or if it was a broader business issue.

The Commission examined the club's financial records and considered the evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that while the club had indeed experienced financial difficulties, these issues were not entirely attributable to the agreement's terms. The club's financial problems were a result of multiple factors, including broader economic conditions and management decisions. The Commission found that the agreement's terms had not significantly contributed to the club's financial hardship. Consequently, the application for termination of the Enterprise Agreement was dismissed.

The Commission did not grant the club's application for termination of the Enterprise Agreement 2017, finding that the financial hardship was not primarily caused by the agreement's terms. The club was required to continue to abide by the agreement's terms unless and until it was replaced or terminated by a different process under the Fair Work Act.

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.