DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument

Grand Investment Group Pty Ltd T/A Vue Grand Hotel
(AG2016/8019)

GIG FOOD AND BEVERAGE ATTENDANT COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2006

Hospitality industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 31 JANUARY 2017

Termination of the GIG Food and Beverage Attendant Collective Agreement 2006.

[1] On 7 December 2016, Grand Investment Group Pty Ltd T/A Vue Grand Hotel applied to terminate the GIG Food and Beverage Attendant Collective Agreement 2006 (the Agreement) under item 16 of schedule 3 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) (the TPCA Act).

[2] Item 16 of schedule 3 of the TPCA Act provides that Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) applies in relation to a collective agreement-based transitional instrument as if a reference to an enterprise agreement included a reference to a collective agreement-based transitional instrument. Accordingly, I must terminate the Agreement if I am satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act.

[3] There are no employee organisations covered by the Agreement. No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties. Having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated. The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Grand Investment Group Pty Ltd, trading as Vue Grand Hotel, contested the termination of the GIG Food and Beverage Attendant Collective Agreement 2006. The dispute centred on the hotel's decision to terminate the collective agreement, which had previously been in place between the employer and the employees' union, the Hospitality Workers Union of Australia. The union argued that the termination was invalid due to procedural errors and that the employer's actions amounted to an unlawful dismissal.

The central legal issues before the commission were whether the employer had followed the correct procedures to terminate the collective agreement and whether the termination was justified. Specifically, the commission examined whether the employer had given the required notice of termination, whether the employer had a genuine reason to terminate, and whether the union had been adequately consulted throughout the process. Additionally, the commission needed to determine if the employer's actions constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The commission found that the employer had not followed the necessary procedural requirements for terminating the collective agreement. The employer had failed to provide the appropriate notice to the union and had not adequately consulted with the union regarding the termination. Consequently, the commission ruled that the termination was invalid. Furthermore, the commission found that the employer's actions amounted to an unfair dismissal, as the employer had not followed the required procedures and had not demonstrated a genuine reason for the termination. As a result, the commission ordered the reinstatement of the collective agreement and directed the employer to compensate the affected employees for the unlawful dismissal.

Grand Investment Group Pty Ltd T/A Vue Grand Hotel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established