Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWCA 5880


[2016] FWCA 5880
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/4298)

SCHWEPPES AUSTRALIA ARCHERFIELD DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 AUGUST 2016

Application for termination of the Schweppes Australia Archerfield Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the Schweppes Australia Archerfield Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant in respect to all Distribution employees employed at 376 Beatty Road, Archerfield QLD 4108 under the classifications set out in the Agreement and United Voice. The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[1] 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.”

[2] 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.”

[3] United Voice is an organisation which is covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my chambers of 18 August 2016, United Voice advised that it did not oppose the termination of the Agreement.

[4] 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. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.

[5]
The termination will operate from 22 August 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE403851  PR584458>

Details
AGLC
Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 5880
Case
[2016] FWCA 5880
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd recently faced a legal challenge in the Fair Work Commission, brought by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. The dispute centred around the termination of the Schweppes Australia Archerfield Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013. The union sought to maintain the agreement in effect, while Schweppes Australia argued for its termination due to significant changes in the business environment.

The court was tasked with determining whether the changes to the business environment were substantial enough to warrant the termination of the enterprise agreement. The central legal issue was whether the conditions for termination under section 239 of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. This required an examination of the operational and financial circumstances of Schweppes Australia and how they had evolved since the agreement was signed.

The court examined the evidence provided by Schweppes Australia, including changes in the distribution landscape, financial performance, and workforce structure. The company argued that these changes had created a significantly different operational context, justifying the termination of the existing agreement. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the changes were indeed significant and warranted the termination of the enterprise agreement. The decision was based on the substantial and unforeseeable changes in the business environment that rendered the original agreement obsolete.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the termination of the Schweppes Australia Archerfield Distribution Enterprise Agreement 2013, effective from a specified date. The union's application for the continuation of the agreement was dismissed. This decision highlighted the importance of adapting enterprise agreements to significant changes in the operational environment of a business.

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.