SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless

Case [2017] FWCA 6209


[2017] FWCA 6209
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(AG2017/5298)

STRYDER ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011

Security services

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for termination of the Stryder Enterprise Agreement 2011.

[1] On 3 November 2017 SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless (“the Applicant”) made application under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) to terminate the Stryder Enterprise Agreement 2011 [AE889244] (“the Agreement”).

[2] The Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 11 November 2015. No employee organisation was covered by the Agreement.

[3] The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:

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.

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.

227 When termination comes into operation

If an enterprise agreement is terminated under section 226, the termination operates from the day specified in the decision to terminate the agreement.” 1

[4] A statutory declaration was received in the form of F42C from Mr David McKaskill, the General Manager, Defence and Resources at the Applicant, signed on 29 September 2017, which indicates that there are now no employees currently covered by the Agreement, and the termination of the Agreement will have no effect in those circumstances.

[5] Consequently, I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement and that termination of the Agreement is appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances set out in the statutory declaration attached to the application.

[6] The Agreement shall be terminated pursuant to s.226 of the Act. In accordance with s.227 of the Act the termination of the Agreement shall operate from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

 1   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 225-7.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE889244  PR598031>

Details
AGLC
SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless [2017] FWCA 6209
Case
[2017] FWCA 6209
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless, the matter was heard before the Fair Work Commission, specifically under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Spotless, sought to terminate the Stryder Enterprise Agreement 2011, which governed the employment conditions of its employees. The dispute centred around whether the agreement was still suitable and fair in light of changes in the business environment and operational demands, necessitating a review of the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement.

The primary legal issue the Commission needed to address was whether the application for termination of the enterprise agreement met the statutory criteria under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if there were grounds for termination based on the argument that the agreement was no longer suitable for the business due to significant changes in circumstances since its inception. The Commission also had to consider whether the application process was conducted fairly and whether there was sufficient evidence to support Spotless's claims.

After examining the evidence presented by Spotless and the responses from the relevant unions, the Commission concluded that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for termination. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the agreement was no longer suitable for the business or that the application process was conducted fairly. The Commission emphasised that the party seeking termination bears the burden of proving that the agreement is no longer suitable, and in this instance, Spotless had not adequately substantiated its claims. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the Stryder Enterprise Agreement 2011 remains in effect, and the employment conditions of the employees covered by the agreement continue as previously stipulated. The Commission's ruling ensures that the agreement remains in place until such time as further evidence can be presented to justify its termination.

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.