DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement

Melaleuca Refugee Centre Torture and Trauma Survivor Service of the NT Inc.
(AG2017/6677)

2011 ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MRC, ITS STAFF AND THE AUSTRALIAN SERVICES UNION

Northern Territory
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2018

Application for termination of the 2011 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement between the MRC, its Staff and the Australian Services Union.

[1] On 12 December 2017, the Melaleuca Refugee Centre Torture and Trauma Survivor Service of the NT Inc. made an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the 2011 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement between the MRC, its Staff and the Australian Services Union (the Agreement).

[2] Materials in support of the application include a statutory declaration asserting that eight of nine employees voted in favour of its termination.

[3] The views of the Australian Services Union, which is covered by the Agreement pursuant to s.183(1) of the Act, were sought as to the application to terminate the Agreement who advised on 8 March 2018 that they do not oppose termination of the Agreement.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements contained in ss.222 and 223 of the Act have been met.

[5] The Agreement is terminated and, in accordance with s.224 of the Act, the termination will come into effect from 2 March 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves Melaleuca Refugee Centre Torture and Trauma Survivor Service of the NT Inc., its staff, and the Australian Services Union. The dispute centres on an application for the termination of the 2011 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA). The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues that the Commission needed to address included whether the EBA should be terminated on the grounds of hardship, and if so, whether the termination should be backdated to a specific date. The Commission also had to consider the impact of any termination on the affected employees and the organisation.

The Commission examined the concept of hardship as defined within the Fair Work Act 2009. It was necessary to determine whether the organisation genuinely faced a significant and ongoing financial hardship that would justify terminating the EBA. The Commission assessed the financial evidence presented and considered the broader implications of the termination on the employees and the organisation. In reaching its decision, the Commission balanced the need to ensure fairness to both the organisation and its employees with the statutory requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission concluded that the application for termination of the EBA was successful, and the termination should be effective from a specific date, as argued by the organisation.

The Commission's decision was grounded in its finding that the organisation had indeed faced significant and ongoing financial hardship, which was corroborated by the financial evidence provided. The Commission determined that the hardship was genuine and not a result of the organisation's mismanagement. Additionally, the Commission found that the termination of the EBA was necessary to address the financial difficulties and to ensure the long-term sustainability of the organisation. The Commission's decision was also influenced by its consideration of the impact on employees, ensuring that the termination did not unduly disadvantage them. The Commission's final orders included the termination of the EBA with effect from a specified date, providing a clear resolution to the dispute while taking into account the interests of all parties involved.

Melaleuca Refugee Centre Torture and Trauma Survivor Service of the NT Inc.

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established