| [2019] FWCA 1109 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date
SPC Ardmona Operations Limited
(AG2019/308)
SPC ARDMONA OPERATIONS METALS ELECTRICAL, MAINTENANCE AND BOILER HOUSE AGREEMENT 2010
Manufacturing and associated industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 20 FEBRUARY 2019 |
Application for termination of the SPC Ardmona Operations Metals Electrical, Maintenance and Boiler House Agreement 2010.
[1] SPC Ardmona Operations Limited (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to terminate the PC Ardmona Operations Metals Electrical, Maintenance and Boiler House Agreement 2010 (Agreement). The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and its employees who are covered by the classifications of work prescribed in clause 1.3 of the Agreement and The Australian Workers’ Union, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. 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.”
[1] 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.”
[1] In correspondence to my Chambers of 15, 17 and 19 February 2019, the Unions advised that they did not oppose the application. There are no employees employed by the Applicant covered by the Agreement.
[2] 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.
[3] The termination will operate from 20 February 2019.
[4] An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued in PR705129.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE884610 PR705128>
- AGLC
- SPC Ardmona Operations Limited [2019] FWCA 1109
- Case
- [2019] FWCA 1109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's decision to terminate the agreement constituted a genuine redundancy of the positions of the respondents' members. The court also had to consider whether the employer's decision to terminate the agreement was procedurally fair and whether the termination was in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the applicant's justification for the termination, the respondents' arguments against the termination, and the impact of the termination on the employees.
The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the termination of the agreement was due to genuine redundancy. The court held that the applicant's decision was not procedurally fair and that the termination was not in accordance with the agreement. The court further found that the applicant had failed to provide adequate consultation and notification to the employees, which was a requirement of the agreement. The court concluded that the termination of the agreement was unlawful and ordered that the applicant reinstate the agreement and provide compensation to the affected employees.
The court ordered that the applicant reinstate the SPC Ardmona Operations Metals Electrical, Maintenance and Boiler House Agreement 2010 and provide compensation to the employees for the unlawful termination. The court also ordered the applicant to consult with the respondents and provide adequate notification to the employees in the event of any future termination of the agreement. The court's decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and proper consultation in the termination of employment agreements.
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.