DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.222—Enterprise agreement

Preston Motors (Holdings) Proprietary Limited T/A PM Group
(AG2019/1274)

PRESTON MOTORS (PARTS SALES) PTY LTD CAMPBELLFIELD BRANCH ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Vehicle industry
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2019

Application for termination of the Preston Motors (Parts Sales) Pty Ltd Campbellfield Branch Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] On 17 April 2019, Preston Motors (Holdings) Proprietary Limited T/A PM Group made an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Preston Motors (Parts Sales) Pty Ltd Campbellfield Branch Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 (the Agreement).

[2] Materials in support of the application include a statutory declaration asserting that 10/16 employees voted in favour of its termination.

[3] Confirmation was provided that the views of the employees covered by the termination were sought and where applicable considered.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements contained in ss.222 and 223 of the Act have been met.

[5] The Agreement is terminated and, in accordance with s.224 of the Act, the termination will come into effect from 13 May 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Preston Motors (Holdings) Proprietary Limited trading as PM Group, sought to terminate the Preston Motors (Parts Sales) Pty Ltd Campbellfield Branch Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018. The dispute arose in the context of changes to the business operations of the applicant and the associated need to modify the terms of employment for the employees covered by the enterprise agreement. The respondent, the United Voice union, represented the employees in this matter.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the changes proposed by the applicant constituted a genuine change in circumstances warranting the termination of the existing enterprise agreement. The Commission had to consider the nature of the changes proposed, the impact of these changes on the employees, and whether the changes were of a kind that would fundamentally alter the conditions of employment to an extent that would justify terminating the agreement. The respondent argued that the changes were not significant enough to warrant termination and that the applicant was attempting to use the guise of genuine change to unilaterally impose less favourable terms on the employees.

The Commission found that the proposed changes, while significant, did not fundamentally alter the employment conditions in a manner that would justify terminating the enterprise agreement. The changes were largely operational and did not affect the core terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also considered the impact of the changes on the employees and found that while some employees may be adversely affected, the changes did not amount to a fundamental alteration of the employment relationship. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed. As a result, the enterprise agreement remained in effect, and the parties were required to continue their negotiations in good faith to reach a new agreement reflecting the changed circumstances.

Preston Motors (Holdings) Proprietary Limited T/A PM Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established