Skilled Group Limited T/A Longhill Group

Case [2017] FWCA 5318


[2017] FWCA 5318
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Skilled Group Limited T/A Longhill Group
(AG2017/4489)

LONGHILL GROUP AND THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION - REGIONAL RAIL LINK SOUTHERN CROSS STATION TO FOOTSCRAY JUNCTION PROJECT AGREEMENT 2012-2015

[AE896652]

Building, metal and civil construction industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 13 OCTOBER 2017

Application for termination of the Longhill Group and the Australian Workers’ Union - Regional Rail Link Southern Cross Station to Footscray Junction Project Agreement 2012 - 2015.

[1] Skilled Group Limited T/A Longhill Group (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act), to terminate the Longhill Group and the Australian Workers’ Union - Regional Rail Link Southern Cross Station to Footscray Junction Project Agreement 2012 - 2015 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[2] 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;

(c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.”

[3] 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.”

[4] The AWU is an organisation covered by the Agreement. In correspondence to my Chambers of 11 October 2017, the AWU advised that it does not oppose the application. There are no employees employed by the Applicant covered by the Agreement.

[5] 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 and as stated in the employer’s declaration there are no employees covered by the Agreement. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.

[6] The termination will operate from 13 October 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE896652  PR596805>

Details
AGLC
Skilled Group Limited T/A Longhill Group [2017] FWCA 5318
Case
[2017] FWCA 5318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skilled Group Limited, trading as the Longhill Group, applied to terminate an agreement with the Australian Workers' Union concerning the Regional Rail Link Southern Cross Station to Footscray Junction Project for the years 2012 to 2015. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the matter involved the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the agreement, specifically regarding the grounds for termination and the obligations of the parties under the agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Longhill Group had valid grounds to terminate the agreement and if the Australian Workers' Union had breached the terms of the agreement to a degree that justified termination. The Longhill Group argued that the union had not complied with the requirements set out in the agreement, thus providing a legitimate basis for termination. Conversely, the union contended that the Longhill Group's actions had been unreasonable and that any breaches were not substantial enough to warrant termination.

The Commission examined the specific provisions of the agreement and the conduct of both parties. It determined that while there had been some breaches of the agreement by the union, they were not severe enough to justify termination. Furthermore, the Commission found that the Longhill Group had acted unreasonably in its attempts to terminate the agreement. Consequently, the Commission decided that the application for termination was not justified and dismissed the application. The Commission also made orders concerning the reinstatement of certain terms and the continuation of the agreement as per its original terms.

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.