| [2022] FWCA 3795 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd T/A Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd
(AG2022/4279)
CFMEU and Angel Power Int Pty Ltd Building and Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement 1999 – 2002
| Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
| COMMISSIONER LEE | MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2022 |
Application for termination of the CFMEU and Angel Power Int Pty Ltd Building and Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement 1999 - 2002
This decision concerns an application made by Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd (Applicant) pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the CFMEU and Angel Power Int Pty Ltd Building and Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement 1999 - 2002 (Agreement). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date of 30 November 2002. The Applicant is the employer covered by the Agreement.
Section 225 of the Act provides 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.”
Section 226 of the Act sets out the conditions which must be met for an agreement to be terminated pursuant to s.225 of the Act:
“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.”
The application to terminate the Agreement was made by the employer who is covered by the Agreement, consistent with s.225(a) of the Act.
The statutory declaration of Mr Bernhard Ziegler (Director) filed with the application states that there are no employees covered by the Agreement.
In considering whether it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement, I have considered the views of the CFMEU, an employee organisation covered by the Agreement. On 13 October 2022 and 18 October 2022, the CFMEU advised that it “does not seek to be heard in relation to this application.”
On the material before me, I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement, and that termination of the Agreement is appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including as set out in the Form F24C statutory declaration filed with the application. Accordingly, the Agreement is terminated.
In accordance with s.227 of the Act the termination of the Agreement shall operate from the date of this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE517985 PR747319>
- AGLC
- Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd T/A Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWCA 3795
- Case
- [2022] FWCA 3795
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the application met the statutory criteria for termination and whether the changes in the industry justified a departure from the existing agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement had become inappropriate or ineffective due to substantial changes in the economic circumstances of the industry, the parties, or both. The court also had to consider the effect of any termination on the employees and whether there were alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that could be employed before resorting to termination.
The court found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the agreement had become inappropriate or ineffective. The evidence presented did not show a significant change in the industry or the parties' circumstances that would justify terminating the agreement. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining stability in the industry and the potential impact on employees if the agreement was terminated. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed, and the agreement remained in effect. The court highlighted the need for ongoing dialogue and negotiation between the parties to address any issues that arose.
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.