DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipelines Product
(AG2020/1290)

ROCLA PTY LTD - DUBBO AGREEMENT 2010

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN	SYDNEY, 12 MAY 2020

Application for termination of the Rocla Pty Ltd - Dubbo Agreement 2010.

[1] On 8 May 2020, Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipelines Product (Rocla) made an application pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to terminate the Rocla Pty Ltd - Dubbo Agreement 2010 (the Agreement). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date of 13 September 2013.

[2] The application was supported by a statutory declaration of Allyson Urquhart, HR Business Partner of Rocla, which stated that there are no employees covered by the Agreement since the Dubbo site ceased its manufacturing operation in 2013.

[3] I have considered, and am satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act. Accordingly, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from 12 May 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rocla Pty Ltd, trading as Rocla Pipelines Products, filed an application to terminate the Rocla Pty Ltd - Dubbo Agreement 2010. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. The dispute centred around the validity and enforceability of the agreement, particularly in light of allegations of unconscionable conduct and the application of the statutory provisions under the Australian Consumer Law.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the terms of the agreement were unconscionable and whether Rocla Pty Ltd had engaged in conduct that contravened the statutory protections. The court had to assess the nature of the agreement, the bargaining power of the parties, and the fairness of the contract terms in light of the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were any procedural irregularities that warranted the termination of the agreement.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Bromberg considered the principles of unconscionability as outlined in the Australian Consumer Law. The court found that the agreement contained terms that were unfair and took into account the disparity in bargaining power between the parties. Furthermore, the court held that certain conduct by Rocla Pty Ltd amounted to unconscionable conduct, as defined under the statutory provisions. The court also found that there were procedural irregularities in the agreement that further justified its termination. Consequently, the court granted the application to terminate the agreement, recognising the need to protect the weaker party from unfair and oppressive terms.

Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipelines Product

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established