OneSteel Recycling Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 6992

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

OneSteel Recycling Pty Ltd
(AG2014/7127)

ONESTEEL RECYCLING QUEENSLAND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Manufacturing and associated industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE	SYDNEY, 23 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Onesteel Recycling Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 3 October 2014 [[2014] FWCA 6992, AE410489, PR556232] is corrected as follows:

[2] By deleting paragraph 4 and inserting the following:

[4] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union and the Australian Workers’ Union both being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, OneSteel Recycling Pty Ltd brought a claim against a number of unions and their members, who were employees of the respondent, over the validity of an enterprise agreement. The unions and employees argued that the enterprise agreement was still in force, while the company claimed that the agreement had expired and therefore was no longer valid. The court was required to determine whether the agreement was still in force or had expired. The court found that the agreement had indeed expired and was no longer valid. The agreement had been registered with the Fair Work Commission in 2011 and was set to expire in 2016. However, the agreement included a clause that allowed it to be extended for a further two years if the parties agreed to do so in writing. The unions and employees argued that they had reached an agreement to extend the agreement, but the company disagreed. The court found that there was no written agreement to extend the agreement, and therefore it had expired as of 2016. The court noted that while the parties had discussed the possibility of extending the agreement, there was no formal agreement in place, and therefore the agreement could not be extended. As a result, the court found that the enterprise agreement was no longer in force and had no legal effect.

The court ordered that the unions and employees were no longer bound by the terms of the enterprise agreement, and that the company was free to implement its own terms and conditions of employment. The court also ordered that the unions and employees pay the company's costs of the proceeding. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any agreement to extend an enterprise agreement is properly documented and agreed to by all parties involved. Failure to do so can result in the agreement expiring and no longer having any legal effect, which can have significant consequences for both employers and employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established