Phillip Arcidiacono T/A Rose Cleaning Service
Case
•
[2016] FWCA 1769
•22 March 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Phillip Arcidiacono T/A Rose Cleaning Service [2016] FWCA 1769
[2016] FWCA 1769
22 March 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Phillip Arcidiacono, trading as Rose Cleaning Service, applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate two collective agreements. The agreements in question were the Rose Cleaning Service and LHMU Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2008, and the Phillips Cleaning Service and LHMU Clean Start Union Collective Agreement 2010, both of which applied to ACT Government Schools. The LHMU Clean Start Union sought to intervene in the proceedings.
The central legal issue before the commission was whether the agreements could be terminated under section 237 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section permits termination if the commission is satisfied that the agreement is no longer appropriate or if it fails the better off overall test. The commission had to determine whether the agreements were no longer fit for purpose or if there were substantial changes in the workplace that warranted their termination.
The commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that there had been changes in the workplace, including shifts in the cleaning services industry and the impact of technological advancements. However, the commission concluded that these changes did not render the agreements inappropriate or inequitable. Furthermore, the commission determined that the agreements continued to meet the better off overall test, as they provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. Therefore, the commission dismissed the applications for termination of both collective agreements. The commission did not find that the agreements were no longer suitable or that they failed the better off overall test.
The central legal issue before the commission was whether the agreements could be terminated under section 237 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section permits termination if the commission is satisfied that the agreement is no longer appropriate or if it fails the better off overall test. The commission had to determine whether the agreements were no longer fit for purpose or if there were substantial changes in the workplace that warranted their termination.
The commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that there had been changes in the workplace, including shifts in the cleaning services industry and the impact of technological advancements. However, the commission concluded that these changes did not render the agreements inappropriate or inequitable. Furthermore, the commission determined that the agreements continued to meet the better off overall test, as they provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. Therefore, the commission dismissed the applications for termination of both collective agreements. The commission did not find that the agreements were no longer suitable or that they failed the better off overall test.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Collective Agreements
-
Termination of Employment
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Revlon Australia Pty Limited [2020] FWCA 3290
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Russell-Uren v Director-General, Education Directorate
[2017] ACAT 113
United Voice
[2016] FWC 4454
Revlon Australia Pty Limited
[2020] FWCA 3290
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board
[1965] HCA 50
Re Aurizon Operations Limited
[2015] FWCFB 540