| [2021] FWCA 6506 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(AG2021/7988)
CRONSTEDT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015
Cleaning services | |
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS | PERTH, 2 NOVEMBER 2021 |
Application for termination of the Cronstedt Enterprise Agreement 2015.
[1] This decision concerns an application made by SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless (the Applicant) for the termination of the Cronstedt Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement).
[2] This application is made under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[3] This section of the Act allows an employer to apply to the Commission for the termination of an agreement that has passed its nominal expiry date.
[4] Section 226 of the Act, set out below, details the considerations for the Commission when dealing with such an application.
“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.”
[5] The Applicant has provided in support of its application a statutory declaration from Mr David Morris (Mr Morris), General Manager – Government & Citizen Services of the Applicant.
[6] Mr Morris explains that the Agreement has a nominal expiry date of 6 November 2019, and that the Applicant does not currently engage employees under the Agreement nor is it foreseeable it will in the future.
[7] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (collectively, the Unions) were invited to provide any views on the application but neither has sought to make any submission regarding the application.
[8] The Applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would be in the public interest.
Consideration
[9] I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest.
[10] Taking into account the Applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, which has not been challenged by the Unions, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.
[11] Accordingly, the Cronstedt Enterprise Agreement 2015 is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE416503 PR735406>
- AGLC
- SSL Security Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless [2021] FWCA 6506
- Case
- [2021] FWCA 6506
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission considered various factors, including the economic context, changes in the nature of the industry, and the impact of these changes on the bargaining power of the parties. It also examined the reasons provided by Spotless for the application, which included the argument that the existing agreement was no longer fit for purpose due to the significant changes in the industry. The Union, on the other hand, argued that the agreement should remain in place as it provided essential protections for its members.
After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Commission found that the industry had indeed undergone significant changes, but it did not consider these changes to be of a nature or extent that would warrant the termination of the existing agreement. The Commission held that the changes did not undermine the capacity of the parties to negotiate an updated agreement. Therefore, the application for termination was dismissed. The Commission also ordered that the application fee be refunded to Spotless.
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.