DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Giovenco Industries (Aust) Limited
(AG2017/749)

GIOVENCO INDUSTRIES (CALTEX LYTTON REFINERY - QLD) UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2009-2012

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 6 APRIL 2017

Application for termination of the Giovenco Industries (Caltex Lytton Refinery - Qld) Union Collective Agreement 2009-2012.

[1] An application has been made pursuant to s225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Giovenco Industries (Caltex Lytton Refinery – Qld) Union Collective Agreement 2009 - 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made by Giovenco Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[2] I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. In accordance with s226 of the Act the Agreement is terminated. The termination operates from 6 April 2017.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Giovenco Industries (Aust) Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for termination of the Giovenco Industries (Caltex Lytton Refinery - Qld) Union Collective Agreement 2009-2012. The applicant sought to terminate the agreement on the basis that it had become redundant due to changes in the workforce, and that continuing with the existing agreement was impractical. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union opposed the application.

The central legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the applicant had established that the collective agreement had indeed become redundant or that its continuation was impractical. The Commission considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that the agreement could no longer serve its intended purpose and that the continuation of the agreement was no longer practical.

The Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the collective agreement had become redundant or that its continuation was impractical. The Commission held that the applicant's evidence did not establish that the agreement could no longer serve its intended purpose, and that the applicant had not shown that continuing with the agreement was no longer practical. The application was dismissed.

The Commission made no orders for costs. The applicant was directed to pay the Union's costs of the application in the amount of $2,500, and the Union was directed to pay the applicant's costs of the application in the amount of $2,500. The parties were to bear their own costs of the hearing.

Giovenco Industries (Aust) Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established