Gliderol International Pty. Ltd. Trading As Gliderol Garage Doors

Case [2025] FWCA 3384


[2025] FWCA 3384

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.222 - Application for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement

Gliderol International Pty. Ltd. Trading As Gliderol Garage Doors

(AG2025/3148)

GLIDEROL GARAGE DOORS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2023

Manufacturing and associated industries

COMMISSIONER YILMAZ

MELBOURNE, 8 OCTOBER 2025

Application for termination of the Gliderol Garage Doors Production Employees (South Australia) Enterprise Agreement 2023

  1. Gliderol International Pty. Ltd. Trading As Gliderol Garage Doors (the Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Gliderol Garage Doors Production Employees (South Australia) Enterprise Agreement 2023 (the Agreement).

  1. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement. It was approved by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 4 April 2023.  It was approved to operate from 11 April 2023 with a nominal expiry date of 4 April 2026. The Agreement was made directly with employees and no industrial organisation is covered by it.

  1. Section 223 of the Act sets out the conditions which must be met for an enterprise agreement to be terminated pursuant to section 222 of the Act:

“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.

  1. The application was supported by a Form F24A statutory declaration completed by Rachel Elizabeth Ezzat, Human Resources Business Partner of the Applicant.

  1. Rachel Ezzat declared, among other things, that on 3 September 2025 the Applicant conducted briefing sessions with all employees about the proposal to terminate the Agreement, provided an explanation on the effect of terminating the Agreement, and gave employees the opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns. This was followed up with written letters to employees. One letter included a draft employment agreement for each employee’s consideration and the second an explanation of the terms and conditions of employment and comparison of provisions under the Agreement and the Manufacturing Award. A copy of these letters were provided to the Commission.

  1. Rachel Ezzat further declared that the voting method was explained and confirmed in writing to employees and the confidential ballot was conducted on 12 September 2025. There are 24 employees covered by the Agreement, 16 cast a valid vote with 15 voting in favour of the termination of the Agreement.

  1. I am satisfied that the process followed meets the requirements in s.220(2) and s.223(a) of the Act. I am also satisfied that the termination was agreed to by a majority of employees in accordance with s.221(1) and s.223(b) of the Act.

  1. I am satisfied that there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the affected employees have not agreed to the termination in accordance with s.223(c) of the Act.

  1. For the purpose of section 223(d) of the Act, I note that there are no employee organisations covered by the Agreement whose views are required to be taken into account.

  1. Based on the material that is before the Commission, including Ms Ezzat’s statutory declaration, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.223 of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I must approve the termination of the Agreement under s.222 of the Act. The termination of the Agreement is approved.

  1. In accordance with s.224 of the Act, the termination of the Agreement will operate from the day of this decision, being 8 October 2025.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE519651 PR792472>

Details
AGLC
Gliderol International Pty. Ltd. Trading As Gliderol Garage Doors [2025] FWCA 3384
Case
[2025] FWCA 3384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Gliderol International Pty. Ltd., trading as Gliderol Garage Doors, for the termination of the Gliderol Garage Doors Production Employees (South Australia) Enterprise Agreement 2023. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has the authority to make decisions regarding enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was brought due to alleged breaches of the agreement by the union representatives and a desire to terminate the agreement on the grounds of hardship.

The central legal issues the Commission needed to resolve were whether the union representatives had breached the enterprise agreement and, if so, whether such breaches warranted the termination of the agreement. The Commission also had to determine whether the company had demonstrated sufficient grounds of hardship to justify the termination of the agreement. This required a detailed examination of the terms of the agreement, the nature and extent of the alleged breaches, and the evidence of hardship presented by the company.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union representatives had indeed breached the enterprise agreement, specifically by failing to comply with the agreement's dispute resolution process. However, the Commission determined that these breaches did not reach the threshold required to justify the termination of the agreement. Regarding the hardship application, the Commission found that while the company had experienced some financial difficulties, it had not demonstrated that these difficulties were severe enough to warrant the termination of the enterprise agreement. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of following agreed dispute resolution processes and highlighted that termination should only be considered in cases of significant and unavoidable hardship.

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.