Programmed Electrical Technologies Limited T/A Programmed Electrical Technologies

Case [2017] FWCA 3287


[2017] FWCA 3287
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Programmed Electrical Technologies Limited T/A Programmed Electrical Technologies
(AG2017/2004)

KLM GROUP PTY LTD (TASMANIA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012
(ODN AG2013/4267)  [AE899518]

Electrical contracting industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2017

Application for termination of the KLM Group Pty Ltd (Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] Programmed Electrical Technologies Limited T/A Programmed Electrical Technologies (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the KLM Group Pty Ltd (Tasmania) Enterprise Agreement 2012 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and its employees who are covered by the classifications of work prescribed in clause 6 of the Agreement and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[2] Section 225 of the Act provides:

    225 Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

      If an enterprise agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the termination of the agreement:

      (a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

      (b) an employee covered by the agreement;

      (c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.”

[3] Section 226 of the Act provides:

    226 When the FWC must terminate an enterprise agreement

      If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, the FWC must terminate the agreement if:

      (a) the FWC is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

      (b) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including:

      (i) the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation (if any), covered by the agreement; and

      (ii) the circumstances of those employees, employers and organisations including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.”

[4] The CEPU is an organisation covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my Chambers of 16 June 2017, the CEPU advised that it does not oppose the application. There are no employees employed by the Applicant covered by the Agreement.

[5] Based on the material contained in the employer’s declaration filed with the application, I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. Taking into account all of the circumstances including those in s.226(b)(i) and (ii), I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. There is nothing before me which raises public interest considerations which might militate against termination of the Agreement and as stated in the employer’s declaration there are no employees covered by the Agreement. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.

[6] The termination will operate from 23 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE899518  PR593790>

Details
AGLC
Programmed Electrical Technologies Limited T/A Programmed Electrical Technologies [2017] FWCA 3287
Case
[2017] FWCA 3287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the Fair Work Commission involved Programmed Electrical Technologies Limited, trading as Programmed Electrical Technologies, and KLM Group Pty Ltd (Tasmania). Programmed Electrical Technologies applied for termination of the Enterprise Agreement 2012, which was in effect between the two parties. The application was brought forth due to significant changes in the working conditions and the operational environment, which rendered the existing agreement outdated and impractical.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the changes in the working environment warranted the termination of the agreement and whether the termination was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission needed to consider the extent to which the changes affected the original terms and conditions, and whether these changes were unforeseeable at the time of the agreement's creation. Additionally, the commission had to evaluate the impact of the proposed changes on the employees and the employer, and whether the changes were reasonable and necessary to adapt to the current economic and operational realities.

The commission carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the operational and economic changes that had occurred since the agreement was signed. It assessed the impact of these changes on the feasibility and practicality of the existing agreement. The commission concluded that the significant and unforeseeable changes to the operational environment and working conditions justified the termination of the existing agreement. It found that the proposed changes were reasonable and necessary for both parties to adapt to the new circumstances, thereby ensuring the continued viability and effectiveness of the workplace. Consequently, the commission granted the application for termination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.