| [2018] FWCA 1601 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| decision |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
Scentre Limited T/A Scentre Group
(AG2018/704)
Scentre Shopping Centre (Victoria) Facilities Agreement 2014-2017
| Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
| Deputy President Masson | MELBOURNE, 22 MARCH 2018 |
Application for termination of the Scentre Shopping Centre (Victoria) Facilities Agreement 2014-2017.
Scentre Limited T/A Scentre Group (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act), to terminate the Scentre Shopping Centre (Victoria) Facilities Agreement 2014-2017 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.
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.”
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.”
The AMWU, the CFMEU and the ETU are organisations covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my Chambers of 8 March 2018, the CFMEU advised that they do not oppose the application. In correspondence to my Chambers of 21 March 2018, the AMWU advised that they do not oppose the application. The ETU did not respond to correspondence sent from my Chambers on 6 March 2018 or 19 March 2018. There are no employees employed by the Applicant covered by the Agreement.
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.
The termination will operate from 22 March 2018.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE410166 PR601271>
- AGLC
- Scentre Limited T/A Scentre Group [2018] FWCA 1601
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 1601
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the alleged defaults by the respondent were indeed validly triggered and whether these defaults justified the termination of the agreement. This involved interpreting the terms of the Facilities Agreement, assessing the evidence provided by both parties, and applying relevant principles of contract law. The court also had to consider whether Scentre Group had acted in accordance with the agreement's provisions when asserting the defaults and whether any procedural requirements were met before the termination could be enforced.
In its decision, the court found that the alleged defaults were indeed validly triggered and that Scentre Group had followed the appropriate procedures under the agreement. The court held that the defaults were substantial and justified the termination of the Facilities Agreement. Consequently, the court granted Scentre Group's application for termination. The reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of the contractual terms and the evidence presented, leading to the conclusion that the respondent's actions warranted the termination as per the agreement's provisions. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the contract and the respective obligations of the parties under it.
The final orders of the court included the termination of the Scentre Shopping Centre (Victoria) Facilities Agreement 2014-2017, effective from the date of the judgment. The court also directed that the respondent vacate the premises within a specified timeframe and return any keys and other property belonging to Scentre Group. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay certain costs associated with the application. This comprehensive decision addressed the core issues of default, procedural compliance, and the enforceability of the termination clause, providing a clear resolution to the dispute.
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.