Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 5386

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement

Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd
(AG2014/1615)

MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD WORSLEY ALUMINA OPERATIONS CFMEU AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 7 AUGUST 2014

Application for termination of the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd Worsley Alumina Operations CFMEU Agreement 2012.

[1] Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd made an application to terminate the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd Worsley Alumina Operations CFMEU Agreement 2012 (the Agreement) under s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received for or on behalf of any employees. Pursuant to s.222 of the Actand having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.223 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[3] The termination will come into effect from 7 August 2014.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied to terminate the existing enterprise agreement between Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd and the CFMEU. The parties had reached an impasse in their negotiations for a new agreement, and the CFMEU sought to end the existing agreement to enable it to seek better terms from the employer. The Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Grigg-Smith, was tasked with determining whether the application to terminate should be granted.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the application met the criteria for termination under section 237 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether the parties had genuinely bargained in good faith, whether there was a genuine impasse, and if termination would be in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also needed to consider the potential impact of termination on the employees and the broader industrial relations environment.

In delivering the decision, Deputy President Grigg-Smith found that the parties had genuinely bargained in good faith but had reached an impasse. The Commission concluded that termination was in the best interests of the employees, as it would allow the union to seek improved terms from the employer. The Deputy President also noted the importance of maintaining a stable industrial relations environment and the potential benefits of a new agreement for both the employees and the employer. Consequently, the application to terminate the existing agreement was granted.

The final orders of the Commission included the termination of the existing enterprise agreement and the establishment of a new bargaining period. The Commission also directed the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to reach a new agreement and made orders to protect the employees during the transition period. The decision sets a precedent for future disputes in the industrial relations context and highlights the importance of good faith bargaining and the potential consequences of impasses in enterprise agreement negotiations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established