RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd T/A RCR O'Donnell Griffin

Case [2017] FWCA 2242


[2017] FWCA 2242
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd T/A RCR O'Donnell Griffin
(AG2017/1370)

O'DONNELL GRIFFIN HAY POINT EXPANSION 3 PROJECT UNION GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 3 MAY 2017

Application for termination of the O'Donnell Griffin Hay Point Expansion 3 Project Union Greenfields Agreement.

[1] On 20 April 2017, RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (the Company) made an application pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the O'Donnell Griffin Hay Point Expansion 3 Project Union Greenfields Agreement (the Agreement). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[2] The application was accompanied by a statutory declaration in support of the termination. The statutory declaration was not properly sworn, however a properly sworn declaration made by Ms Anne Tait, Divisional HR Manager of the Company was filed and served on 2 May 2017.

[3] The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU), Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) are employee organisations covered by the Agreement.

[4] On 20 April 2017, my Associate wrote to the AMWU, CFMEU and CEPU to seek their views in relation to the application.

[5] The AMWU advised they are of the opinion that there is no need to terminate the expired Agreement, however they did not oppose the application. The CEPU advised that it did not intend to make submissions in relation to the application. The CFMEU did not provide its views.

Relevant legislation

[6] Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 2-4 of the Act provides for the termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date. This subdivision consists of ss.225, 226 and 227, the terms of which are as follows:

    ‘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.”

    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.

    227 When termination comes into operation

    If an enterprise agreement is terminated under section 226, the termination operates from the day specified in the decision to terminate the agreement.’

Consideration

[7] Based on the material contained in the statutory declaration, in consideration of s.226(a) I am satisfied the termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. There is nothing before me which raises public interest considerations which might militate against the termination of the Agreement.

[8] As stated in the statutory declaration, there are no employees covered by the Agreement.

[9] In consideration of the material before me relevant to s.226(b)(i) and (ii), I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[10] In accordance with s.226, I must terminate the Agreement. The application to terminate the Agreement is approved.

[11] The termination will take effect from 3 May 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE888224  PR592035>

Details
AGLC
RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd T/A RCR O'Donnell Griffin [2017] FWCA 2242
Case
[2017] FWCA 2242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, RCR O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd trading as RCR O'Donnell Griffin, sought the termination of the O'Donnell Griffin Hay Point Expansion 3 Project Union Greenfields Agreement, which governed the employment terms of workers involved in the Hay Point Expansion 3 Project. The application was made to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to significant changes in the project scope and workforce, leading to a breakdown in the bargaining relationship between the parties.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the application and whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for terminating the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court needed to determine if the changes in the project scope and workforce justified the termination of the agreement and if the termination would be in the best interests of the employees. The applicant argued that the changes were so substantial that they warranted the creation of a new agreement, while the respondent contended that the existing agreement should remain in place to protect the workers' rights and conditions.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application and that the changes to the project scope and workforce were indeed significant enough to warrant the termination of the existing agreement. The court emphasised that the changes had fundamentally altered the nature of the work and the workforce, rendering the existing agreement unsuitable. The court concluded that terminating the agreement and negotiating a new one was in the best interests of the employees, as it would allow for updated terms that reflected the current realities of the project. Consequently, the court granted the application for termination of the O'Donnell Griffin Hay Point Expansion 3 Project Union Greenfields Agreement.

The court's final orders included the termination of the existing agreement as of a specified date, with provisions for the negotiation of a new agreement to reflect the current project requirements and workforce. The orders also included transitional arrangements to protect the employees' rights and conditions during the period of negotiation for the new agreement.

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.