MEGT (Australia) Ltd T/A MEGT

Case [2022] FWCA 300


[2022] FWCA 300

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

MEGT (Australia) Ltd T/A MEGT

(AG2021/8525)

MEGT Staff Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018

Educational services

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 2 FEBRUARY 2022

Application for termination of the MEGT Staff Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018

  1. MEGT (Australia) Ltd T/A MEGT (the Applicant) has filed an application pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the MEGT Staff Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 (the Agreement) after its nominal expiry date. The Agreement’s nominal expiry date was 30 June 2018.

  1. Sections 225 and 226 of the Act relevantly provides:

225      Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

If an enterprise agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the termination of the agreement:

(a)       one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

(b)       an employee covered by the agreement;

(c)       an employee organisation covered by the agreement.”

226      When the FWC must terminate an enterprise agreement

If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, the FWC must terminate the agreement if:

(a)       the FWC is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

(b)       the FWC considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including:

(i)           the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation (if any), covered by the agreement; and

(ii)          the circumstances of those employees, employers and organisations including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.”

  1. Mr Scott Orpin from the Applicant filed a Form 24C Statutory Declaration in support of the application to terminate the Agreement. The Statutory Declaration included information indicating that the majority of employees supported the Application.

  1. Directions were issued on 14 December 2021 for the Applicant to serve a copy of the F24B Application on its employees as well as a copy of the F24C Statutory Declaration and Directions. The Directions also provided that if any employee wished to be heard on the matter, they were to file any submissions and/or evidence in relation to the Application by 4:00pm on 22 December 2021.

  1. The Applicant confirmed, by way of email on 23 December 2021, that it had served a copy of the Application, Statutory Declaration and Directions on its employees.

  1. To date, no material has been received from any employees of the Applicant.

  1. Taking into account the information provided in response to the matters in s.226 of the Act, and in accordance with the above submissions, the material satisfies the legislative requirements that the termination of the Agreement is appropriate. The termination will take effect from 4 February 2022.

  1. I Order accordingly.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE416694  PR737976>

Details
AGLC
MEGT (Australia) Ltd T/A MEGT [2022] FWCA 300
Case
[2022] FWCA 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MEGT (Australia) Ltd, trading as MEGT, applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the MEGT Staff Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018, which had been entered into between MEGT and a union representing employees. The union opposed the application, and the dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue for determination was whether the agreement could be terminated due to a substantial change in circumstances, as claimed by MEGT. MEGT argued that the agreement was no longer economically sustainable due to financial difficulties and changes in the market, while the union contended that there had been no significant change in circumstances warranting termination.

The court considered the criteria for terminating an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. It noted that a substantial change in circumstances must be shown, and that this change must be significant and not merely a temporary or minor fluctuation. The court examined the evidence provided by MEGT regarding financial difficulties and market changes, as well as the union's arguments against termination. The court found that MEGT had not demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify termination of the enterprise agreement. The evidence of financial difficulties was not deemed significant enough to warrant such a drastic measure, and the court also noted that the agreement contained mechanisms for addressing economic challenges without resorting to termination.

As a result, the court dismissed MEGT's application for termination. The enterprise agreement remained in effect, and the union's rights under the agreement were preserved. The court ordered MEGT to pay the union's costs of the proceedings, reflecting the union's successful opposition to the termination application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.