DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
(AG2017/1880)

WATTYL PAINT CENTRE SOUTH AUSTRALIA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2010

Retail industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 7 JULY 2017

Termination of the Wattyl Paint Centre South Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010.

[1] On 26 May 2017, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association lodged an application for the termination of the Wattyl Paint Centre South Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to this application was received from or on behalf of any parties. The employer covered by the Agreement advised my chambers that it no longer employs any employees under the Agreement, and that it accordingly does not oppose the application.

[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 case involved the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which brought an application against Wattyl Paint Centre South Australia. The association sought an order that the Wattyl Paint Centre South Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 had not been terminated. The Fair Work Commission heard the application, where the central issue was whether the agreement had been properly terminated, and if not, whether the association could claim the benefits of the agreement.

The court examined the procedural steps taken to terminate the enterprise agreement. It was established that the termination notice had not been provided to the required parties, including the employees, as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009. This omission was critical, as the correct notification process is a prerequisite for a valid termination. The association argued that without proper notification, the termination was ineffective and the enterprise agreement remained in force. The commission agreed, holding that the failure to provide the necessary notification rendered the termination invalid.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission found that the Wattyl Paint Centre South Australia Enterprise Agreement 2010 had not been properly terminated due to the procedural error in the notification process. Consequently, the agreement remained in effect. The association was granted the relief it sought, ensuring that the rights and conditions outlined in the agreement continued to apply to the employees. The commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for terminating enterprise agreements.

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