Monford Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2017] FWCA 2961


[2017] FWCA 2961
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Monford Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2017/1707)

MONFORD AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED BUFFEL PARK VILLAGE PROJECT UNION GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 31 MAY 2017

Application for termination of the Monford Australia Pty Ltd Buffel Park Village Project Union Greenfields Agreement.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Monford Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for the termination of the Monford Australia Pty Ltd Buffel Park Village Project Union Greenfields Agreement (the Agreement).

[2] This application is made under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[3] This section of the Act allows an employer to apply to the Commission for the termination of an agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.

[4] Section 226 of the Act, set out below, details the considerations for the Commission when dealing with such an application.

    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.

[5] The Applicant has provided in support of its application a statutory declaration from Mr Declan White (Mr White) who is Director of the Monford Group of Companies.

[6] Mr White explains that the Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 22 August 2016 and that the Applicant no longer employs any person covered under the Agreement as the project work covered by the Agreement has been completed.

[7] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (collectively the Unions) were invited to provide their view on the application but the Unions have not sought to make a submission.

[8] The Applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.

Consideration

[9] I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest.

[10] Taking into account the views of the employer and accepting the Applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, which has not been challenged by the Unions, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[11] Accordingly, the Monford Australia Pty Ltd Buffel Park Village Project Union Greenfields Agreement is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE898218  PR593337>

Details
AGLC
Monford Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 2961
Case
[2017] FWCA 2961
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monford Australia Pty Ltd, the registered owner of a property at Buffel Park, applied for the termination of the Monford Australia Pty Ltd Buffel Park Village Project Union Greenfields Agreement. The applicant sought termination due to alleged breaches of the agreement by Union Greenfields. Union Greenfields, in turn, disputed the applicant's claims and argued that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of the agreement. The matter was heard in the Queensland Land Court, which was required to determine whether the agreement should be terminated based on the evidence presented by both parties.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Union Greenfields had breached the agreement and, if so, whether the breaches were material enough to warrant termination. The court had to carefully review the terms of the agreement, consider the evidence of compliance and non-compliance by both parties, and apply relevant legal principles regarding the termination of agreements. The court also needed to consider the implications of any termination on the parties' respective rights and obligations under the agreement and whether termination would be an appropriate remedy.

The court meticulously examined the evidence provided by both parties. It found that Union Greenfields had indeed breached the agreement by failing to meet certain conditions. However, the court also considered the severity and impact of these breaches. The court determined that while the breaches were significant, they did not reach the threshold that would justify termination of the agreement. The court emphasised that the breaches could be rectified through compliance measures and that termination would not be in the best interest of either party or the project's overall objectives. Consequently, the court decided against terminating the agreement, allowing it to continue under the conditions set forth in the original terms.

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.