| [2016] FWCA 8970 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date
RCR Haden Pty Ltd
(AG2016/7664)
HADEN ENGINEERING PTY LTD AND CEPU - PLUMBING DIVISION (VIC) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
(ODN AG2012/491) [AE891928]
Plumbing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 14 DECEMBER 2016 |
Application for termination of the Haden Engineering Pty Ltd and CEPU -Plumbing Division (Vic) Enterprise Agreement 2011 - 2015.
[1] RCR Haden Pty Ltd (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the Haden Engineering Pty Ltd and CEPU – Plumbing Division (Vic) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and its employees who are covered by the classifications of work prescribed in clause 2.2 of the Agreement and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). 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 14 December 2016, 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. 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 14 December 2016.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE891928 PR588539>
- AGLC
- RCR Haden Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 8970
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 8970
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine change in the business circumstances that would warrant the termination of the enterprise agreement. The Commission considered the applicant's claims of financial difficulties and changes in the industry landscape, but concluded that these were not sufficient to meet the high threshold required for terminating an enterprise agreement. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining stable employment conditions during economic fluctuations and recognised the need to protect employees' rights under the agreement.
Consequently, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for termination. The enterprise agreement remained in effect, ensuring that the employees continued to be covered by the terms and protections established in the 2011-2015 agreement. The decision underscored the Commission's cautious approach to terminating enterprise agreements, highlighting the need for compelling evidence of significant and genuine changes in business circumstances.
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.