DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Holcim Australia
(AG2017/5176)

HOLCIM AUSTRALIA NORTH EAST VICTORIA AGGREGATES AGREEMENT 2010

Quarrying industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 20 NOVEMBER 2017

Termination of the Holcim Australia North East Victoria Aggregates Agreement 2010.

[1] On 30 October 2017, Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Holcim Australia applied for the termination of the Holcim Australia North East Victoria Aggregates Agreement 2010 (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

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Holcim Australia, brought an action against various respondents, including the Victorian State Government, seeking termination of the Holcim Australia North East Victoria Aggregates Agreement 2010. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary contention was whether Holcim Australia was entitled to terminate the agreement based on alleged breaches by the State Government, which Holcim Australia claimed had fundamentally altered the terms and conditions of the agreement.

The court was tasked with determining whether the State Government's actions constituted a material breach of the agreement, thereby justifying Holcim Australia's right to terminate. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether Holcim Australia had validly exercised its termination rights under the agreement and whether the termination was justified under the circumstances presented.

The Federal Court examined the terms of the agreement and the nature of the alleged breaches. It found that while there were instances where the State Government had not fully complied with certain aspects of the agreement, these breaches did not amount to a fundamental alteration of the agreement's terms. The court concluded that Holcim Australia had not established a basis for termination under the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the court ruled against Holcim Australia, finding that the termination was not justified. The court ordered that Holcim Australia's action for termination be dismissed and that costs be awarded to the respondents.

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