DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Greater Bank Ltd
(AG2017/4182)

THE GREATER BUILDING SOCIETY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Banking finance and insurance industry
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS	NEWCASTLE, 1 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for termination of The Greater Building Society Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] The Greater Bank Ltd (The Greater) had a new enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission on 8 September 2017. The new enterprise agreement is known as the Greater Bank Enterprise Agreement 2017 (2017 EA). The scope of coverage of the 2017 EA is different from the The Greater Building Society Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2014 (2014 EA). In particular, the 2017 EA does not cover about 60 “senior” employees who are covered by the 2014 EA (Non-Covered Employees).

[2] The Greater has applied to terminate the 2014 EA. The nominal expiry date of the 2014 EA was 30 June 2017. Ms Kristy Bagnall, Head of Human Resources at The Greater, has provided a witness statement in support of the application to terminate the 2014 EA. I have had regard to that witness statement in deciding this application.

[3] The New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Union (USU) is covered by the 2014 EA. The USU has been given an opportunity to, and has, provided its views to the Commission in relation to The Greater’s application to terminate the 2014 EA. 1 I have had regard to the views expressed by the USU in its letter to the Commission dated 31 October 2017 in deciding this application.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the Non-Covered Employees have been given an opportunity to inform the Commission if they oppose the application to terminate the 2014 EA. The Commission has not received any witness statement or communication from an employee of The Greater indicating their opposition to the application to terminate the 2014 EA.

[5] I am also satisfied that The Greater has engaged in consultation with, and provided information to, the Non-Covered Employees about the application for termination of the 2014 EA and the consequences of it for them. Two of the Non-Covered Employees 2 who have been involved in consultation process have informed the Commission that:

● they consent to the application to terminate the 2014 EA;

● so far as they are aware, each of the Non-Covered Employees consent to the application to terminate the 2014 EA; and

● they are not aware of any employee of The Greater who does not consent to the termination of the 2014 EA.

[6] Having regard to the information provided to me in Ms Bagnall’s witness statement, by Mr Goodchild and Mr Booth on 24 October 2017, and by the USU in its letter to the Commission dated 31 October 2017, I am satisfied that: 3

● termination of the 2014 EA is not contrary to the public interest; and

● it is appropriate to terminate the 2014 EA taking account all the circumstances including:

○ the views of the employees covered by the 2014 EA, The Greater, and the USU; and

○ the circumstances of those employees, The Greater, and the USU including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.

[7] Accordingly, I terminate the 2014 EA with effect from midnight on 3 November 2017. An order [PR597349] giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

1 Letter from the USU to the Commission dated 31 October 2017

2 Mr W. Goodchild and Mr B. Booth

3 Section 226 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case before the court was an application by Greater Bank Limited for the termination of The Greater Building Society Limited Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute arose out of the merger of The Greater Building Society Limited with Greater Bank Limited, and the subsequent implementation of the merger terms. The Fair Work Commission had previously issued a decision that the enterprise agreement was to be terminated. The Building Society Employees' Union challenged this decision, and the matter was brought before the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission had the authority to terminate the enterprise agreement as a result of the merger. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, as well as the terms of the enterprise agreement itself. The court also had to consider the impact of the merger on the employees covered by the agreement.

The court held that the Fair Work Commission did have the authority to terminate the enterprise agreement. The court found that the merger of the two entities resulted in a significant change in the nature of the business, and that this change was sufficient to warrant the termination of the enterprise agreement. The court also found that the provisions of the enterprise agreement itself did not prevent the termination of the agreement as a result of the merger. The court rejected the argument that the termination of the agreement would have an adverse impact on the employees, finding that the new enterprise agreement provided for better conditions than the old agreement. The court also found that the employees had not been adequately consulted about the proposed changes to the agreement.

The court's decision was upheld on appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court. The final orders of the court were that the termination of the enterprise agreement was lawful, and that the Building Society Employees' Union's appeal was dismissed with costs.

Greater Bank Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established