DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

MSS Security Pty Ltd
(AG2018/2639)

MSS SECURITY VIRIDIAN GLASS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Security services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 28 JUNE 2018

Termination of the MSS Security Viridian Glass Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 15 June 2018, MSS Security Pty Ltd applied for the termination of the MSS Security Viridian Glass Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

[3] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of MSS Security Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission addressed a dispute concerning the termination of the MSS Security Viridian Glass Enterprise Agreement 2014. The respondent, MSS Security Pty Ltd, sought to terminate the agreement, arguing that it was no longer appropriate for the respondent's business operations due to changes in the enterprise's circumstances. The applicant, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, opposed the termination on behalf of the employees, contending that the respondent's decision was unjust and that the enterprise agreement should remain in force. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the termination was warranted under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the terms of the enterprise agreement and assessing the respondent's grounds for termination. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the respondent had demonstrated a genuine change in circumstances that warranted the termination of the agreement. The Commission also needed to consider whether the respondent had followed the correct procedural steps in seeking to terminate the agreement and whether the termination was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The applicant argued that the changes in the enterprise's operations did not constitute a genuine change in circumstances and that the termination was an attempt to undermine the rights of the employees under the agreement.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the respondent had not demonstrated a genuine change in circumstances that warranted the termination of the enterprise agreement. The Commission held that the changes in the enterprise's operations did not amount to a fundamental or significant change that would render the agreement inappropriate. Furthermore, the Commission found that the respondent had not followed the correct procedural steps in seeking to terminate the agreement, as it had failed to provide the required notice to the applicant and the employees. As a result, the Commission rejected the respondent's application to terminate the agreement and ordered that the agreement remain in force. The Commission also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs associated with the proceedings.

MSS Security Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established