DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222 - Application for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement

Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd T/A Geokinetics
(AG2016/6705)

GEOKINETICS (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Mining industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY	BRISBANE, 1 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for termination of the Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd T/A Geokinetics (Geokinetics) applies for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement known as the Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (theAgreement). The application is made pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct).

[2] The Agreement was approved on 18 November 2014 and commenced operation on 25 November 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 November 2018.

CONSIDERATION

[3] Geokinetics, being the employer covered by the Agreement, applies for its termination pursuant to s.222 of the Act. The application has been made within the time prescribed by s.222(3)(a) of the Act, and was accompanied by the required declarations.

[4] The Commission must terminate the Agreement if those matters in s.223 of the Act are satisfied as follows:

“223 When the FWC must approve a termination of an enterprise agreement

If an application for the approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 222, the FWC must approve the termination if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that each employer covered by the agreement complied with subsection 220(2) (which deals with giving employees a reasonable opportunity to decide etc.) in relation to the agreement; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that the termination was agreed to in accordance with whichever of subsection 221(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with agreement to the termination of different kinds of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and

(c) the FWC is satisfied that there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the employees have not agreed to the termination; and

(d) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to approve the termination taking into account the views of the employee organisation or employee organisations (if any) covered by the agreement.”

[5] The originating application was accompanied by a Statutory Declaration of Mr Martin Quilty, Regional Operations Manager for Geokinetics.

[6] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.220(2) and 221(2) as are relevant to this application for termination have been met. I am further satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the employees have not agreed to the termination and I consider that it is appropriate to approve the termination.

[7] The termination of the Agreement is approved. The termination will operate from 1 November 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the proceedings were Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd, trading as Geokinetics, and the Transport, Distribution and Electric Lines Union of Australia (TD&ELA). The dispute was centred around the application to terminate the Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues that the Commission was required to decide were whether the changes to the operational environment of Geokinetics constituted a significant change in circumstances, and if such a change warranted the termination of the existing enterprise agreement. The Commission considered whether the applicant had demonstrated that the agreement was no longer fit for purpose and that there were no viable alternatives to termination.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the changes in the operational environment, including the introduction of new technology, changes in the workforce, and the impact of these changes on the terms and conditions of employment. It was established that the changes had indeed resulted in significant alterations to the way the business operated, which affected the roles and responsibilities of employees. The Commission concluded that the changes were substantial enough to be considered a significant change in circumstances, warranting the termination of the existing agreement. The Commission also found that the applicant had not been able to reach a new agreement with the union, and therefore, termination was the appropriate course of action. The Commission ultimately ruled in favour of the applicant and granted the termination of the Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014. The decision was based on the evidence that the significant changes in the operational environment had rendered the existing agreement unworkable, and that there were no other viable alternatives to termination.

Geokinetics (Australasia) Pty Ltd T/A Geokinetics

DECISION

CONSIDERATION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established