DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(AG2017/4823)

SPOTLESS SERVICES - STANWELL POWER STATION SECURITY SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 - 2016

Security services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 26 OCTOBER 2017

Termination of the Spotless Services - Stanwell Power Station Security Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016.

[1] On 13 October 2017, Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd applied for the termination of the Spotless Services - Stanwell Power Station Security Services Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties. United Voice, an employee organisation covered by the agreement, corresponded with my chambers on 20 October 2017 to confirm it had no objection to the application being granted.

[3] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd trading as Spotless, brought proceedings in the Federal Court against the applicants, a trade union and a number of its members. The applicants had made claims on behalf of employees that the termination of their employment was unlawful because it did not comply with the terms of the Spotless Services - Stanwell Power Station Security Services Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The applicants sought an order that the terminations be declared to be null and void. Spotless sought orders to permanently stay the proceedings, and for costs. The central issue for the Court to decide was whether the terminations were valid, and whether the proceedings should be stayed in their entirety. The Court found that the terminations were valid because they were carried out in accordance with the terms of the enterprise agreement. It held that there was no basis to stay the proceedings, but that the applicants should pay costs to Spotless. The Court found in favour of Spotless and dismissed the applicants' claims.

Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established