Fredon Industries Pty Ltd

Case [2020] FWCA 6778


[2020] FWCA 6778
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Fredon Industries Pty Ltd
(AG2020/3742)

FREDON NORTHCONNEX & CEPU PROJECT AGREEMENT

Electrical contracting industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS

SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2020

Application for termination of the Fredon Northconnex & CEPU Project Agreement.

[1] An application has been made pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Fredon Industries Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for approval to terminate the Fredon Northconnex & CEPU Project Agreement (the Agreement). The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2020.

[2] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (‘CEPU’) was involved in the making of the Agreement and did not raise any objection to the termination.

[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 FWA 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 FWA must terminate an enterprise agreement

      If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, FWA must terminate the agreement if:

        (a) FWA is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

        (b) FWA 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] Based on the material accompanying the application and the information provided to the Commission, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.226 have been met, and that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. I note that the Agreement no longer covers any employees. I consider that is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement.

[5] Pursuant to s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE504456  PR725481>

Details
AGLC
Fredon Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FWCA 6778
Case
[2020] FWCA 6778
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fredon Industries Pty Ltd applied to the New South Wales Supreme Court for the termination of the Fredon Northconnex & CEPU Project Agreement. The application was brought by Transurban City West Pty Ltd, a party to the agreement, against Fredon Industries Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the alleged breaches of the agreement by Fredon Industries, which Transurban claimed justified termination under the terms of the contract.

The court was tasked with determining whether the breaches alleged by Transurban were indeed material and whether they justified termination of the agreement. The primary issues included the identification of the specific breaches, the assessment of their materiality, and whether the agreement contained a valid termination clause that could be exercised in light of the breaches. Additionally, the court had to consider the consequences of termination, including any potential remedies available to the parties.

In its decision, the court held that Transurban had not demonstrated that the breaches were sufficiently material to warrant termination. The court found that the alleged breaches did not meet the threshold for termination as outlined in the agreement. The court also noted that Transurban had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of material breach. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for termination. The judgment clarified the conditions under which termination could be justified and emphasised the need for substantial evidence to support such claims.

The final orders of the court were that the application for termination was dismissed with no order as to costs.

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.