Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd T/A Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWCA 3795


[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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.

  1. The   statutory declaration of Mr Bernhard Ziegler (Director) filed with the application states that there are no employees covered by the Agreement.

  1. 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.”

  1. 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.

  1. 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>

Details
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 case involved an application by Rhino Construction Services Pty Ltd to terminate the Building and Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement 1999 - 2002, which was in place between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Angel Power International Pty Ltd. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with Commissioner Heydon presiding. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement was no longer appropriate due to changes in the industry and the parties' circumstances.

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.