S J Weir (Ballarat) Pty Ltd

Case [2020] FWCA 6504


[2020] FWCA 6504
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.222—Enterprise agreement

S J Weir (Ballarat) Pty Ltd
(AG2020/3601)

S.J WEIR (BALLARAT) PTY LTD EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

MELBOURNE, 3 DECEMBER 2020

Application for termination of the S.J Weir Ballarat Pty Ltd Employee Collective Agreement 2012.

[1] On 25 November 2020, S J Weir (Ballarat) Pty Ltd (Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the S.J Weir Ballarat Pty Ltd Employee Collective Agreement 2012 (Agreement).

[2] The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 19 December 2016.

[3] In the circumstances and based on the material contained in the Applicant’s declaration filed with the application, I am satisfied that the Applicant has complied with s.220(2) of the Act and that, having regard to the matters identified in ss.222 and 223, it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is terminated with effect from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE899045  PR725122>

Details
AGLC
S J Weir (Ballarat) Pty Ltd [2020] FWCA 6504
Case
[2020] FWCA 6504
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

S J Weir (Ballarat) Pty Ltd was the subject of an application for the termination of its employee collective agreement, the S.J Weir Ballarat Pty Ltd Employee Collective Agreement 2012, filed by the applicant. The dispute centred around whether the agreement should be terminated due to significant changes in the business environment and the inability of the parties to reach a new agreement. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the termination of the collective agreement. The applicant argued that the significant changes in the business environment, including the economic downturn and shifts in the industry, necessitated a new agreement to reflect the current realities of the business. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the changes were not substantial enough to warrant termination and that the existing agreement should remain in effect until the expiry of its term.

In its decision, the commission considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the changes in the business environment and the efforts made to negotiate a new agreement. The commission found that while there had been significant changes in the economic conditions and the industry, these changes alone were not sufficient grounds for terminating the agreement. The commission emphasised the importance of continued dialogue and negotiation between the parties to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed, and the existing collective agreement was upheld until its scheduled expiry.

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.