Legal Research
Cases
Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Heathwood

Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Heathwood

Case [2018] FWCA 1004

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2018] FWCA 1004

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement

Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Heathwood
(AG2018/151)

HEATHWOOD RETAIL PTY LTD 2016 EBA

Restaurants
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 15 FEBRUARY 2018

Termination of the Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd 2016 EBA.

[1] On 19 January 2018, Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Heathwood applied for the termination of the Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd 2016 EBA (the Agreement), under s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

[3] Pursuant to s.222 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.223 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd T/A Zarraffas Heathwood [2018] FWCA 1004
Case: [2018] FWCA 1004
Decision Date: 15 FEBRUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd, trading as Zarraffas Heathwood, brought an application to terminate the 2016 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) between the company and its employees, represented by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. The application was made on the basis that the company had experienced financial difficulties, which it argued constituted an economic hardship event, justifying the termination of the EBA under section 240 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the financial difficulties faced by Heathwood Retail Pty Ltd constituted an economic hardship event and whether such an event warranted the termination of the existing EBA. The Commission considered whether the company had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had suffered economic hardship and whether this hardship was a genuine cause, as opposed to being self-inflicted or due to poor management.

After reviewing the evidence presented, the Commission found that the company had not demonstrated a genuine economic hardship event. The financial difficulties experienced by the company were largely due to strategic decisions and operational issues, rather than external economic factors. Consequently, the application to terminate the EBA was dismissed. The Commission emphasised that termination of an EBA should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and where the employer has genuinely suffered economic hardship not of its own making. The company was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders