DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

SKILLED Group Limited
(AG2018/563)

SKILLED GROUP LIMITED C.E. WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2011

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY	MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2018

Application for termination of the SKILLED Group Limited C.E. Workplace Agreement 2011.

[1] SKILLED Group Limited (the Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the SKILLED Group Limited C.E. Workplace Agreement 2011 (the Agreement).

[2] The Applicant advises that there are currently no employees covered by the Agreement.

[3] The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[4] 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;

[5] 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.”

[6] The application was listed for eHearing at 10:am on 22 February 2018 and the public court list stated:

“Persons wishing to be heard in this matter should contact the chambers of Deputy President Gooley at least one hour before the time listed and the matter will be listed for an attendance hearing.”

[7] Chambers was not contacted by any persons seeking to be heard in this matter.

[8] 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.

[9] The termination will operate from 5.00 pm on 22 February 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Skilled Group Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for the termination of the SKILLED Group Limited C.E Workplace Agreement 2011. The dispute arose from the employer's attempt to implement changes to the terms and conditions of employment for its employees, which was opposed by the union representing the employees. The union argued that the changes were not justified and would negatively impact the employees' working conditions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the employer had the right to unilaterally implement changes to the workplace agreement. The court needed to determine whether the employer had provided sufficient justification for the changes and whether the changes were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also needed to consider whether the changes were consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and whether the union had been given an adequate opportunity to negotiate the changes.

The court found that the employer had not provided sufficient justification for the changes to the workplace agreement. The court held that the changes were not consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that the employer had not acted in good faith. The court also found that the union had been given an adequate opportunity to negotiate the changes, but the union had not been able to reach an agreement with the employer. The court therefore rejected the employer's application for termination of the workplace agreement.

The court's decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient justification for changes to workplace agreements and the need for employers to act in good faith when negotiating with unions. The court also emphasised the importance of providing unions with an adequate opportunity to negotiate changes to workplace agreements. The court's decision will provide guidance to employers and unions when negotiating changes to workplace agreements in the future.

SKILLED Group Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established