Squldgy Pty Ltd ATF 8CP Management Unit Trust T/A Eagles The Plumbing Shop

Case [2015] FWCA 8579


[2015] FWCA 8579
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Squldgy Pty Ltd ATF 8CP Management Unit Trust T/A Eagles The Plumbing Shop
(AG2015/7472)

Storage services

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER

SYDNEY, 11 DECEMBER 2015

Termination of the Eagles the Plumbing Shop Lurnea Site Collective Agreement 2012.

[1] On 27 November 2015, Squldgy Pty Ltd ATF 8CP Management Unit Trust T/A Eagles The Plumbing Shop made an application to terminate the Eagles the Plumbing Shop Lurnea Site Collective Agreement 2012 1 (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.

[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

 1   AE896663.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE896663  PR574969 >

Details
AGLC
Squldgy Pty Ltd ATF 8CP Management Unit Trust T/A Eagles The Plumbing Shop [2015] FWCA 8579
Case
[2015] FWCA 8579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Squldgy Pty Ltd ATF 8CP Management Unit Trust T/A Eagles The Plumbing Shop, the respondent brought proceedings to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the Eagles the Plumbing Shop Lurnea Site Collective Agreement 2012. The agreement was made between the respondent and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union NSW Branch, as the bargaining representative for the respondent's employees. The respondent argued that the agreement had become ineffective due to changes in the workforce and the nature of the business.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the changes in the workforce and business operations were sufficient to warrant the termination of the collective agreement. The respondent contended that the agreement had become obsolete, as it no longer reflected the current workforce and the nature of the business. The union, on the other hand, argued that the changes did not warrant termination and that the agreement should remain in effect.

The Commission found that the changes in the workforce and the nature of the business were significant enough to warrant the termination of the collective agreement. The Commission noted that the agreement had been in place for several years and that the changes that had occurred were substantial. The Commission also found that the union had not demonstrated that the agreement was still relevant and effective in representing the interests of the employees. As a result, the Commission terminated the collective agreement, effective from the date of the decision.

The Commission ordered that the termination of the collective agreement would not affect the rights and obligations of the parties under any other agreement or award. The Commission also ordered that the parties would be free to negotiate a new agreement or to rely on the applicable award. The decision provides guidance to employers and unions on the circumstances in which a collective agreement may be terminated and the factors that the Commission will consider in making such a decision.

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.