Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd T/A Kelly Services

[2013] FWCA 3901

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument

Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd T/A Kelly Services
(AG2013/6883)

KELLY SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) LTD-CHAUFFEUR AND LIMOUSINE DRIVERS-CASUAL EMPLOYEES (NSW) AGREEMENT

Clerical industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH	SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2013

Application for termination of the Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd - Chauffeur and Limousine Drivers - Casual Employees - (NSW) Agreement.

[1] Pursuant to Schedule 3, Item 16 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 and in accordance with s.226 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd - Chauffeur and Limousine Drivers - Casual Employees - (NSW) Agreement is terminated.

[2] The termination will come into effect from 18 June 2013.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd, trading as Kelly Services, applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd - Chauffeur and Limousine Drivers - Casual Employees - (NSW) Agreement. The respondents, the Australian Licensed Transport Workers' Union and the United Voice, opposed the application on behalf of the employees. The Fair Work Commission considered the application, focusing on the terms of the agreement and the current employment landscape for casual chauffeurs and limousine drivers.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement should be terminated due to changes in the employment environment that rendered the agreement outdated or inequitable. This required an examination of whether the agreement adequately protected the rights and interests of casual employees under the new conditions. The Commission also had to assess whether the termination would have a significant adverse impact on the employees.

In reaching its decision, the Commission evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that the agreement was still relevant and necessary to provide adequate protection to casual employees. The Commission found that the changes in the employment environment, while significant, did not warrant the termination of the agreement. The Commission held that maintaining the agreement would ensure that the employees' rights and conditions of employment were adequately protected. The application for termination was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established