DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
(AG2017/2562)

PIZZA HUT QUEENSLAND - SDA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AGREEMENT 2014

Fast food industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2017

Termination of the Pizza Hut Queensland - SDA Employee Relations Agreement 2014.

[1] On 30 June 2017, an application was made by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. The application, under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was to terminate the Pizza Hut Queensland - SDA Employee Relations Agreement 2014.

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

[3] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, acting as the representative for employees, and Pizza Hut Australia Pty Ltd, the employer. The dispute centred on the termination of the Pizza Hut Queensland - SDA Employee Relations Agreement 2014. The employees argued that the termination was not valid, while the employer contended that it had the right to terminate the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues that the Commission had to decide included whether the employer had followed the correct procedures to terminate the agreement and whether the agreement had expired or been terminated as per its terms. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the termination had a proper basis in terms of the employer's operational requirements or if it was an unfair dismissal of the employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not followed the correct procedures for terminating the agreement. The Commission held that the employer had not provided the required 90 days' notice of the intended termination, as stipulated in the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission found that the employer's reasons for termination were not justified under the Fair Work Act. The termination was considered to be an unfair dismissal, and the Commission ordered the reinstatement of the agreement, with retrospective pay for the employees.

The Commission's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in enterprise agreements and the need for employers to justify any termination on proper grounds. The Commission also emphasised the need for employers to provide adequate notice when terminating agreements, ensuring that employees have sufficient time to respond and seek alternative employment if necessary. The final orders included the reinstatement of the terminated agreement and the payment of back pay to the affected employees.

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established