Legal Research
Cases
National Hearing Centres Pty Ltd T/A National Hearing Care

National Hearing Centres Pty Ltd T/A National Hearing Care

Case [2013] FWCA 2366

Collective Agreement

Termination of Employment Agreement

Industrial Relations

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2013] FWCA 2366

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument

National Hearing Centres Pty Ltd T/A National Hearing Care
(AG2013/4761)

NATIONAL HEARING CARE (AUDIOLOGY) COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2008

Health and welfare services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH	SYDNEY, 17 APRIL 2013

Application to terminate the National Hearing Care (Audiology) Collective Agreement 2008.

[1] Pursuant to Schedule 3, Item 16 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 and in accordance with s.226 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the National Hearing Care (Audiology) Collective Agreement 2008 is terminated.

[2] The termination will come into effect from 22 April 2013.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: National Hearing Centres Pty Ltd T/A National Hearing Care [2013] FWCA 2366
Case: [2013] FWCA 2366
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

National Hearing Centres Pty Ltd T/A National Hearing Care was before the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant sought to terminate the National Hearing Care (Audiology) Collective Agreement 2008. The applicant argued that changes in the business environment and operational requirements necessitated the termination of the agreement. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had met the legal criteria for termination as set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for termination and whether the process followed was in accordance with the legislative requirements. Specifically, the Commission had to consider if the applicant had established that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to significant changes in the business environment and whether the applicant had complied with the procedural obligations under the Fair Work Act.

The Commission found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the agreement was no longer appropriate for the changed business environment. The evidence provided did not clearly illustrate a direct causal link between the changes in the business environment and the need to terminate the agreement. Additionally, the Commission noted that the applicant had not fully complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application to terminate the agreement was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Commission as the application was dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence and non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Orders