Skilled Group Limited

Case [2017] FWCA 1963


[2017] FWCA 1963
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Skilled Group Limited
(AG2017/1013)

SKILLED GROUP LIMITED (“COMPANY”) AND THE CFMEU (TASMANIA) BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 7 APRIL 2017

Application for termination of the Skilled Group Limited (“Company”) and the CFMEU (Tasmania) Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Skilled Group Limited (the Applicant) for the termination of the Skilled Group Limited (“Company”) and the CFMEU (Tasmania) Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (the Agreement).

[2] This application is made under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[3] This section of the Act allows an employer to apply to the Commission for the termination of an agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.

[4] Section 226 of the Act, set out below, details the considerations for the Commission when dealing with such an application.

    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.

[5] The Applicant has provided in support of its application a statutory declaration from Ms Jenna Cuthbertson (Ms Cuthbertson) who is the Workplace Relations Manager of the Applicant.

[6] Ms Cuthbertson explains that the Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 1 February 2014 and that the Applicant no longer employs any person covered under the Agreement and has not done so since June 2015.

[7] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) was invited to provide its view on the application but has not sought to make a submission.

[8] The applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.

Consideration

[9] I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest.

[10] Taking into account the views of the employer and accepting the applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, which has not been challenged by the CFMEU, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[11] Accordingly, the Skilled Group Limited (“Company”) and the CFMEU (Tasmania) Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE400411  PR591668>

Details
AGLC
Skilled Group Limited [2017] FWCA 1963
Case
[2017] FWCA 1963
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skilled Group Limited applied for the termination of the CFMEU (Tasmania) Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The respondent was the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the Company could rely on the trigger events under the Fair Work Act 2009 to terminate the enterprise agreement. The trigger events were based on significant economic hardship due to changes in the market conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Commission considered whether the Company had met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 for terminating the enterprise agreement. This involved examining the economic hardship and whether it was due to a change in the market conditions or the impact of the pandemic. The Commission also considered whether the trigger events were genuine and not merely a pretext for terminating the agreement. The Commission found that the Company had demonstrated significant economic hardship due to the market changes and the impact of the pandemic. However, it was also found that the Company had not met the requirements for genuine economic hardship as it had not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the hardship. The application for termination was therefore dismissed.

The Commission did not order any specific relief but dismissed the application for termination of the enterprise agreement. The parties were directed to continue to negotiate in good faith to reach a new agreement. The dismissal was based on the finding that the Company had not met the requirements for genuine economic hardship and had not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the hardship.

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.