Jadon Services Pty Ltd

[2018] FWCA 3604

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Jadon Services Pty Ltd

(AG2018/412)

Jadon Services Pty. Ltd. Single Enterprise Agreement 2015

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL	MELBOURNE, 20 JUNE 2018

Application for variation of the Jadon Services Pty. Ltd. Single Enterprise Agreement 2015.

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Jadon Services Pty. Ltd. Single Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made by Jadon Services Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 20 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Jadon Services Pty Ltd, sought a variation of the Single Enterprise Agreement 2015. The applicant, a company engaged in the provision of cleaning and maintenance services, contended that changes in the business environment necessitated amendments to the existing agreement to remain competitive and viable. The application was opposed by the respondents, the union and its members, who argued that the proposed changes would adversely affect the employees' conditions and entitlements.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the requested variations. The Commission needed to assess whether the changes proposed by the applicant were necessary and appropriate, and whether the changes would be in the best interests of the business and the employees. The Commission also had to consider whether the variations would maintain or improve the overall fairness of the agreement.

The Commission found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed variations were necessary or appropriate. The applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the changes were essential for the business's viability. The Commission was also not convinced that the variations would be in the best interests of the business or the employees, as the proposed changes could potentially result in a decrease in the employees' conditions and entitlements. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application for the variation of the Single Enterprise Agreement 2015.

No further orders were made by the Commission. The existing agreement remained in force, and the parties were required to continue to abide by its terms until a new agreement was reached or until the agreement expired.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established