DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Item 16 Sch. 3—Termination of transitional instrument

Guzman Y Gomez Leasing Pty Ltd
(AG2018/7317)

PAVILLION PARTNERS PTY LTD COLLECTIVE WORKPLACE AGREEMENT

Fast food industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 4 FEBRUARY 2019

Termination of the Pavillion Partners Pty Ltd Collective Workplace Agreement.

[1] On 21 December 2018, Guzman Y Gomez Leasing Pty Ltd applied for the termination of the Pavillion Partners Pty Ltd Collective Workplace Agreement (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] 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 10 February 2019.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Guzman Y Gomez Leasing Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Pavilion Partners Pty Ltd, seeking clarification and enforcement of the terms of their collective workplace agreement. The dispute centred on the validity and termination of the collective workplace agreement, with Guzman Y Gomez alleging that Pavilion Partners had improperly terminated the agreement. The court was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the agreement's termination clause and whether the termination was lawful.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the termination clause within the collective workplace agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the agreement could be terminated by a single party under certain conditions, and if the termination was executed in accordance with the agreement's terms. The court examined the language of the agreement, relevant industrial relations principles, and any applicable precedents to ascertain the intentions of the parties and the legal effect of the termination.

The court concluded that the termination clause of the collective workplace agreement allowed for termination under specified circumstances, and that these conditions had been met. The court found that the termination was properly executed according to the terms of the agreement. As such, the court upheld the validity of the termination and dismissed Guzman Y Gomez's claims for enforcement of the agreement. The decision underscored the importance of clear and precise language in workplace agreements and the necessity for parties to adhere to agreed-upon procedures when exercising their rights under such agreements. The court's ruling left the terminated agreement in place and recognised the right of Pavilion Partners to proceed without the constraints of the former agreement.

Guzman Y Gomez Leasing Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established