Securetel Aust Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2127

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.222—Enterprise agreement

Securetel Aust Pty Ltd

(AG2025/2158)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2025

Application to terminate an enterprise agreement under s 222 – application dismissed

This decision concerns an application made by Securetel Aust Pty Ltd (Securetel) to terminate the Securetel (Aust) Pty. Ltd. and ETU Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021 (Agreement) under s 222 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application is dismissed, because the termination was not approved by vote of employees pursuant to s 220. The application states that there are no relevant employees covered by the Agreement. Evidently Securetel intended to make an application under s 225, which allows an application to be made to the Commission to terminate an agreement after the nominal expiry date of the agreement has passed. The company has subsequently made such an application, which is yet to be allocated to a member for determination.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Securetel Aust Pty Ltd applied to terminate an enterprise agreement in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant sought to terminate the agreement on the grounds that there had been a substantial change in circumstances, as defined under section 222 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was dismissed. The Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting the termination of the enterprise agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the making of the enterprise agreement that would justify its termination. The Commission examined the evidence provided by the applicant and considered whether the changes alleged were significant enough to warrant termination. The Commission also assessed the impact of these changes on the operation of the enterprise agreement and the parties' ability to continue working under it.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the changes in circumstances alleged by the applicant did not amount to a substantial change warranting termination. The Commission concluded that the changes were incremental and did not fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the enterprise agreement. The evidence did not support the applicant's assertion that the changes were so significant that the agreement could no longer be effectively administered or operated.

As a result of the decision, the enterprise agreement remains in effect. The applicant is not permitted to terminate the agreement on the grounds of a substantial change in circumstances. The Commission's decision highlights the importance of providing clear and compelling evidence to support an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established