DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Holcim Australia
(AG2017/5175)

HOLCIM AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED PENRITH QUARRY AGREEMENT 2011

Quarrying industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 20 NOVEMBER 2017

Termination of the HOLCIM Australia Pty Limited Penrith Quarry Agreement 2011.

[1] On 30 October 2017, Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Holcim Australia applied for the termination of the HOLCIM Australia Pty Limited Penrith Quarry Agreement 2011 (the Agreement), under s.225 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.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Holcim Australia, and the termination of the Holcim Australia Pty Limited Penrith Quarry Agreement 2011. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The dispute centred on whether Holcim Australia was entitled to terminate the agreement under its terms, specifically clause 10.1, which allows termination for operational reasons. Holcim argued that the quarry's unprofitability and the need to close it constituted operational reasons sufficient to justify termination. The workers' union contended that the closure was due to commercial decisions rather than operational necessity, and thus, the termination was invalid.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the operational reasons clause in the agreement allowed for termination based on the quarry's unprofitability and whether Holcim had properly exercised its right to terminate. The Commission had to interpret the term "operational reasons" in the context of the agreement and consider whether Holcim's decision to close the quarry was genuinely operational or a result of commercial considerations. The interpretation of the agreement and the application of its termination clause were pivotal in resolving the dispute.

The Fair Work Commission held that the term "operational reasons" in the agreement did not encompass the decision to close the quarry due to unprofitability. The Commission found that the primary reason for the termination was commercial, not operational. Holcim's decision was driven by the quarry's financial performance, which did not align with the company's broader strategic goals. Consequently, the Commission ruled that Holcim's termination of the agreement was not valid under clause 10.1. The Commission emphasised that operational reasons should be distinguished from commercial decisions, and the former must relate to factors beyond mere profitability.

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Holcim Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established