| [2017] FWCA 3362 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date
RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd T/A RCR Resolve FM
(AG2017/2098)
RESOLVE FM. (FORD - BROADMEADOW) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012
(ODN AG2012/12247) [AE898535]
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2017 |
Application for termination of the Resolve FM. (Ford - Broadmeadow) Enterprise Agreement 2012.
[1] RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd T/A RCR Resolve FM (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the Resolve FM. (Ford - Broadmeadow) 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 3 of the Agreement and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). 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 AMWU is an organisation covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my Chambers of 21 June 2017, the AMWU 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 22 June 2017.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, AE898535 PR594005>
- AGLC
- RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd T/A RCR Resolve FM [2017] FWCA 3362
- Case
- [2017] FWCA 3362
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether there had been a substantial change in the circumstances of the business that justified the termination of the enterprise agreement. The company argued that the changes in its business model and the economic environment had significantly altered the conditions under which the agreement was made. The Commission was required to assess whether these changes warranted a departure from the agreement or if the agreement should continue to govern the employment conditions of the affected employees.
The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that there had indeed been a substantial change in the circumstances of the business. The Commission found that the changes in the company's operations and the broader economic conditions had created new challenges that were not contemplated at the time of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission granted the application for termination, allowing the company to cease operating under the terms of the 2012 enterprise agreement. The termination order was effective from a specified date, providing both parties with a clear timeline for the transition out of the 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.