Toxfree Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2019] FWCA 4640


[2019] FWCA 4640
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.222 - Application for approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement

Toxfree Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2019/2192)

TOXFREE - QUEENSLAND ALUMINA LTD (QAL) INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2016

Manufacturing and associated industries

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 9 JULY 2019

Application for termination of the Toxfree - Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) Industrial Services Enterprise Agreement 2015-2016

[1] On 25 June 2019 Toxfree Australia Pty Ltd (Toxfree) made an application pursuant to s.222 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the Toxfree - Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) Industrial Services Enterprise Agreement 2015-2016 (the Agreement). The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) is covered by the Agreement.

[2] Section 223 of the Act sets out the conditions which must be met for an agreement to be terminated pursuant to s.222 of the Act. Section 223 provides as follows:

“When the FWC must approve a termination of an enterprise agreement

If an application for the approval of a termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 222, the FWC must approve the termination if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that each employer covered by the agreement complied with subsection 220(2) (which deals with giving employees a reasonable opportunity to decide etc.) in relation to the agreement; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that the termination was agreed to in accordance with whichever of subsection 221(1) or (2) applies (those subsections deal with agreement to the termination of different kinds of enterprise agreements by employee vote); and

(c) the FWC is satisfied that there are no other reasonable grounds for believing that the employees have not agreed to the termination; and

(d)  the FWC considers that it is appropriate to approve the termination taking into account the views of the employee organisation or employee organisations (if any) covered by the agreement.”

[3] The application was supported by a Form F24A statutory declaration made by Mr John Saliba, Human Resources Business Partner of Toxfree which declared, amongst other things, that the 49 employees covered by the Agreement were notified of the time and place of the vote and that of the 47 votes cast, 45 employees approved the termination of the Agreement.

[4] After this matter was allocated to me, I directed Toxfree to produce to my chambers and serve on the AWU a copy of a memorandum described in Mr Saliba’s statutory declaration provided to relevant employees regarding the proposed termination of the Agreement and their ongoing terms and conditions of employment following the termination of the Agreement. Further, I invited the AWU to provide its views on the proposed termination of the Agreement.

[5] On 5 July 2019 Toxfree filed to my chambers and served on the AWU a copy of the memorandum as directed. I note that the memorandum stated that the employees covered by the Agreement would be ‘moved off’ the Agreement following its termination and onto the Cleanaway Industrial Services Gladstone Aluminium Operators Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the Cleanaway Agreement). 1

[6] On 8 July 2019 the AWU wrote to my chambers and to Toxfree and indicated that it had no objection to raise in respect of the present application on the basis of Toxfree’s assurances that all employees currently covered by the Agreement would have the terms and conditions of their employment governed by the Cleanaway Agreement following termination of the Agreement.

[7] On 9 July 2019 I wrote to the parties and drew their attention to clause 3.2 of the Cleanaway Agreement which states:

“3.2 The Agreement shall apply in respect to the Gladstone Operators of the Employer at the Queensland Alumina Ltd, Rio Tinto Australia Yarwun and Boyne Smelters Ltd facilities located in Gladstone, Queensland and to all Employees employed by the Employer on work at these facilities in Gladstone as outlined in the wages clause of this Agreement.”

[8] I noted to the parties that the Cleanaway Agreement defines the word ‘Employer’ to mean ‘Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd ABN 40 010 745 383’. I asked that the parties confirm that the employees covered by the Agreement are now employed by ‘Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd ABN 40 010 745 383’. Mr Saliba responded to my chambers and confirmed that the employees covered by the Agreement are currently employed by ‘Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd ABN 40 010 745 383’.

[9] I am satisfied that the employees covered by the Agreement will be covered by the Cleanaway Agreement following termination of the Agreement.

[10] In consideration of the material before me, including the statutory declaration, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.223 of the Act have been met. In accordance with s.223, I must terminate the Agreement. The application to terminate the Agreement is approved.

[11] The termination will take effect today, 9 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

 1   [2019] FWCA 1192; AE501956.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE416080  PR709989>

Details
AGLC
Toxfree Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWCA 4640
Case
[2019] FWCA 4640
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Toxfree Australia Pty Ltd applied for the termination of the Toxfree - Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) Industrial Services Enterprise Agreement 2015-2016. Toxfree is an Australian company that provides industrial services, and QAL is a subsidiary of Rio Tinto. The dispute centres on the enforceability and validity of the Enterprise Agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Enterprise Agreement was properly made and if it met the statutory requirements for being registered with the Fair Work Commission. Toxfree contended that the agreement was not validly made as it did not receive the necessary majority approval from QAL employees. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections relating to the registration of enterprise agreements and the process for employee approval. Furthermore, the court examined whether the agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Act.

The court found that the Enterprise Agreement was not validly made because it did not achieve the necessary majority approval from QAL employees. The court examined the evidence presented, including the voting records and the process followed by the parties. It concluded that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for registration under the Fair Work Act, leading to its termination. Consequently, the court granted Toxfree's application to terminate the agreement.

The court ordered that the Toxfree - Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) Industrial Services Enterprise Agreement 2015-2016 be terminated, effective from the date of the judgment. This ruling means that the terms and conditions previously governed by the agreement are no longer in effect, and the parties must negotiate new terms or revert to the applicable award or registered agreement. The decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements to ensure their validity and enforceability.

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.