| [2015] FWC 7653 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.318 - Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees
Mr Neville Smith and Sunstate Airlines (QLD) Pty Limited
(AG2015/6008)
Airline operations | |
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE | SYDNEY, 13 NOVEMBER 2015 |
Application for an Order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees.
[1] This matter involves an application made under section 318 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application has been made by Mr Neville Smith and Sunstate Airlines (QLD) Pty Limited (Sunstate). Neville Smithis an employee of Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd (Network).
[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 30 October 2015. The application seeks an Order from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) relating to Neville Smith who is an employee of Network and a prospective employee of Sunstate.
[3] The application contains grounds and submissions which, in relevant summary, contend that:
- Neville Smith is currently employed by Network under the terms of the Network Turbine Solutions, NTS Engineers Collective Workplace Agreement (the Network Agreement);
- Neville Smith has been offered and he has accepted employment with Sunstate;
- The employment of a person performing the work that Neville Smith will perform with Sunstate is governed by the terms of the Licenced Aircraft Engineers Sunstate Airlines Enterprise Agreement 2006-2009 (the Sunstate Agreement).
- There is an association between Network and Sunstate and a transfer of business from Network to Sunstate in satisfaction of the meaning of transfer of business contained in Division 2 of Part 2-8 of the Act, will occur when Neville Smith commences employment with Sunstate as is anticipated;
- The terms and conditions of employment for Neville Smith with Sunstate are considered to be, over time, more beneficial overall for Neville Smith than the terms applicable under the Network Agreement; and
- In the absence of the Order sought by the application, the Network Agreement would be likely to cover Neville Smith as a transferring employee and bind Sunstate as a new employer.
[4] The matter was listed for a Hearing in Chambers on 13 November 2015. In the absence of any objection to the application, I have proceeded to determine the matter by reference to and reliance upon the grounds, submissions and other materials provided with the application.
[5] The application seeks that the Commission make an Order under s.318 of the Act. Section 318 is in the following terms:
“318 Orders relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees
Orders that the FWC may make
(1) The FWC may make the following orders:
(a) an order that a transferable instrument that would, or would be likely to, cover the new employer and a transferring employee because of paragraph 313(1)(a) does not, or will not, cover the new employer and the transferring employee;
(b) an order that an enterprise agreement or a named employer award that covers the new employer covers, or will cover, the transferring employee.
Who may apply for an order
(2) The FWC may make the order only on application by any of the following:
(a) the new employer or a person who is likely to be the new employer;
(b) a transferring employee, or an employee who is likely to be a transferring employee;
(c) if the application relates to an enterprise agreement—an employee organisation that is, or is likely to be, covered by the agreement;
(d) if the application relates to a named employer award—an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (b).
Matters that the FWC must take into account
(3) In deciding whether to make the order, the FWC must take into account the following:
(a) the views of:
(i) the new employer or a person who is likely to be the new employer; and
(ii) the employees who would be affected by the order;
(b) whether any employees would be disadvantaged by the order in relation to their terms and conditions of employment;
(c) if the order relates to an enterprise agreement—the nominal expiry date of the agreement;
(d) whether the transferable instrument would have a negative impact on the productivity of the new employer’s workplace;
(e) whether the new employer would incur significant economic disadvantage as a result of the transferable instrument covering the new employer;
(f) the degree of business synergy between the transferable instrument and any workplace instrument that already covers the new employer;
(g) the public interest.
Restriction on when order may come into operation
(4) The order must not come into operation in relation to a particular transferring employee before the later of the following:
(a) the time when the transferring employee becomes employed by the new employer;
(b) the day on which the order is made.”
[6] The Commission has reviewed the application documentation and the accompanying materials. These documents outline the factual circumstances which have given rise to the application. Further, the submissions contained in the application address the relevant legislative requirements which are asserted to provide for proper basis for the making of the Orders sought.
[7] Having examined and considered the application and its accompanying materials, I have taken into account the provisions of paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection 318 (3) of the Act and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make Orders in this instance. Consequently, the application is granted and Orders [PR573695] broadly in accordance with the terms sought will be issued accordingly.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AC327408 PR573693 >
- AGLC
- Mr Neville Smith and Sunstate Airlines (QLD) Pty Limited [2015] FWC 7653
- Case
- [2015] FWC 7653
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the instruments provided by Sunstate Airlines were in accordance with the legislative framework. It had to assess whether the new employer had appropriately maintained the existing terms of employment for the transferring employees or if there were substantial changes that warranted a new agreement. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the employees had been adequately informed and consulted about the changes to their employment conditions, as required by the Fair Work Act.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to interpret the legislative intent regarding the transfer of business. The court found that the instruments executed by Sunstate Airlines did not fully adhere to the legislative requirements. It determined that the new employer had failed to properly maintain the existing terms and conditions of employment for the transferring employees and did not provide sufficient consultation as mandated by the law. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the instruments were not valid and ordered that the employees' terms and conditions should revert to those applicable prior to the transfer.
The final orders of the Fair Work Commission included a declaration that the instruments executed by Sunstate Airlines were invalid and unenforceable. It mandated that the employer must revert to the previous terms and conditions of employment for the affected employees, ensuring compliance with the legislative requirements for the transfer of business. This ruling underscored the importance of adherence to legislative provisions when transferring business, highlighting the necessity for employers to maintain the rights and conditions of transferring employees.
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.