DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Metcash Trading Ltd T/A C-Store Distribution
(AG2016/6228)

CSD CRESTMEAD AND NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Storage services
COMMISSIONER SPENCER	BRISBANE, 2 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for termination of the CSD Crestmead and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] Metcash Trading Ltd (the Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the CSD Crestmead and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement).

[2] The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 31 May 2016.

[3] The Commission is satisfied that an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement has been made. The Commission is further satisfied that the Applicant is a person able to make an application pursuant to s.225(a) of the Act.

[4] The Commission is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to order the termination of the Agreement.

[5] The Commission is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances and having considered the views of the Applicant, and the National Union of Workers, to terminate the Agreement.

[6] Having considered the material and s.226 of the Act the Agreement must be terminated.

[7] The termination will operate from the date of this decision.

[8] I Order accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent application by Metcash Trading Ltd, trading as C-Store Distribution, to terminate the CSD Crestmead and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with assessing the grounds for termination. The primary dispute centred around the alleged redundancy of certain positions within the company, leading to a call for a re-evaluation of the workforce structure under the agreement. The matter was brought before the Commission to determine whether the conditions for termination were met, specifically under section 242 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the changes in the company’s operations were significant enough to warrant the termination of the existing enterprise agreement and if the proposed changes would result in the redundancy of certain positions. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the company had acted in good faith and whether the changes were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The arguments centred on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act and the specific terms of the enterprise agreement.

The Commission found that Metcash Trading Ltd had provided sufficient evidence to support the termination of the enterprise agreement due to substantial and irreversible changes in the business operations, which rendered certain positions redundant. The Commission concluded that the company had met the criteria for termination under section 242 of the Act. The decision was based on the company’s demonstration of the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed changes, as well as the failure to reach an agreement with the union. The Commission acknowledged the complexity of the situation but ultimately ruled in favour of the applicant, allowing the termination of the enterprise agreement.

The final orders of the Commission included the termination of the CSD Crestmead and National Union of Workers Enterprise Agreement 2013, effective from a specified date. The Commission directed that the termination would not adversely affect the employees covered by the agreement until new terms were agreed upon or determined by the Commission. This decision allows Metcash Trading Ltd to proceed with the restructuring of its operations as planned, while also providing a framework for future negotiations with the union regarding new enterprise arrangements.

Metcash Trading Ltd T/A C-Store Distribution

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established