Total AMS Pty Ltd

Case [2017] FWCA 1879


[2017] FWCA 1879
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225— Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Total AMS Pty Ltd
(AG2017/832)

TOTAL AMS PTY LTD AMOU CONTRACT PROPELLED DREDGING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Dredging industry

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL

PERTH, 1 MAY 2017

Application for termination of the Total AMS Pty Ltd AMOU Contract Propelled Dredging Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application was made by Total AMS Pty Ltd (the applicant) under s. 225 of
the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Total AMS Pty Ltd AMOU Contract Propelled Dredging Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement).

[2] The Agreement was approved by the Fair Work Commission on 13 February 2013 to operate from 20 February 2013 with a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2016.

[3] Sections 225 and 226 of the Act provide:

    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”

Consideration

[4] The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[5] The applicant, being the employer covered by the Agreement, has the necessary standing to bring the application under s.225(a) of the Act.

[6] Based on the material contained in the employer’s statutory declaration filed with the application, I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. There is nothing before me which raises public interest considerations which might weigh against termination of the Agreement.

[7] With respect to the views of parties, the applicant is the employer.

[8] The applicant declared in its statutory declarationthat there are no employees covered by the Agreement.

[9] The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union was invited to provide its view on the application but did not make a submission.

[10] 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.

[11] I am satisfied that the requirements under s.225 and 226 of the Act have been met. I am satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement and that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement.

[12] Accordingly, an Order [PR591551] to this effect will be issued ordering that the Agreement be terminated with effect from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE899859  PR591550>

Details
AGLC
Total AMS Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 1879
Case
[2017] FWCA 1879
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Total AMS Pty Ltd sought to terminate the Total AMS Pty Ltd AMOU Contract Propelled Dredging Enterprise Agreement 2013, which was in place between the company and its employees. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, as the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning enterprise agreements and their termination. The applicants, Total AMS Pty Ltd, argued that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to significant changes in the industry and the company's financial position. The respondents, represented by the Maritime Union of Australia, contested the application, asserting that there were no valid grounds for termination.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Act 2009 stipulates that an enterprise agreement can only be terminated if there are substantial changes in the business circumstances of the employer or if the agreement is no longer appropriate due to changes in the workforce. The Commission needed to determine if the changes presented by the applicants met the criteria for termination and if the process followed was in accordance with the Act.

In assessing the application, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant statutory provisions. The Commission found that the applicants had not demonstrated that there were substantial changes in the business circumstances or that the agreement was no longer appropriate. The evidence provided did not sufficiently support the claim that the agreement could not continue to operate effectively. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the process for terminating the agreement was not followed correctly, as the applicants did not provide the required notice to the respondents. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission held that the application to terminate the enterprise agreement was not substantiated by the evidence provided. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the agreement was no longer appropriate or that there had been substantial changes in the business circumstances. Additionally, the Commission ruled that the process for terminating the agreement was not followed correctly. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the enterprise agreement remained in effect.

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.