| [2019] FWCA 1077 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
SPC Ardmona Operations Limited
(AG2019/309)
SPC ARDMONA OPERATIONS LIMITED (MOOROOPNA) AMWU (FOOD AND CONFECTIONARY EMPLOYEE) CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2003
Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 20 FEBRUARY 2019 |
Application for termination of the SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (Mooroopna) AMWU (Food and Confectionary Employee) Certified Agreement 2003.
[1] SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (Mooroopna) AMWU (Food and Confectionary Employee) Certified Agreement 2003 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and its employees who are covered by the classifications of work prescribed in clause 4 of the Agreement and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). 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] In correspondence to my Chambers of 19 February 2019, the Union advised that it did 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 20 February 2019.
[7] An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued in PR705091.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AG835833 PR705090>
- AGLC
- SPC Ardmona Operations Limited [2019] FWCA 1077
- Case
- [2019] FWCA 1077
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Commission had to resolve included whether the application met the criteria for termination under the Fair Work Act 2009, whether there had been a significant change in circumstances that justified termination, and whether the termination would be just and equitable. The Commission had to consider the implications of terminating the agreement on the employees, the employer, and the broader industrial relations framework. SPC Ardmona argued that changes in the business environment necessitated the termination of the agreement to allow for greater flexibility in managing the workforce and operational costs. The AMWU, on the other hand, contended that the agreement should remain in place to protect employees' rights and ensure fair working conditions.
The Fair Work Commission evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and considered the broader implications of the termination. The Commission found that while there had been significant changes in the business environment, the application did not sufficiently demonstrate a change of circumstances warranting the termination of the agreement. The Commission was also concerned about the potential impact on employees if the agreement were to be terminated. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a balanced approach in industrial relations, protecting both the interests of the employer and the rights of employees. The decision underscores the stringent criteria that must be met for the termination of a certified agreement.
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.