Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWCA 2082


[2016] FWCA 2082
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2689)

TRUSTWELD ENGINEERING PTY LTD WORKSHOP AGREEMENT 2006

Building, metal and civil construction industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 APRIL 2016

Application for termination of the Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd Workshop Agreement 2006.

[1] On 1 April 2016 Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd (Applicant) applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act)to terminate the Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd Workshop Agreement 2006 (the Agreement). The Agreement covers the Applicant and the employees of the Applicant as specified in clause 4 of the Agreement. The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.

[2] The Agreement is a collective agreement-based transitional instrument to which Items

15 and 16 of Schedule 3 of the Fair Work(Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Transitional Act) apply. The effect of Items 15 and 16 of

Schedule 3 of the Transitional Act is that the termination of agreement provisions found in

Subdivisions C and D of Division 7 of the FW Act apply to the Agreement as though a reference to an enterprise agreement included a reference to a collective agreement-based transitional instrument.

[3] Section 225 of the Act provides:

    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.

[4] Section 226 of the Act provides:

    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] Based on the material contained in the Applicant’s declaration filed with the application, I am satisfied that termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. Taking into account all of the circumstances including those in ss.226(b)(i) and (ii), I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement. There is nothing before me which raises public interest considerations which might militate against the termination of the Agreement. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.

[6] The termination will operate from 4 April 2016.

DEPUTY PESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AC307385  PR578647>

Details
AGLC
Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd [2016] FWCA 2082
Case
[2016] FWCA 2082
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd recently brought an application before the Fair Work Commission against its employees, the Transport Workers Union of Australia. The company sought to terminate its existing enterprise agreement, the Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd Workshop Agreement 2006. The legal issues at the heart of the case involved whether the existing agreement was still fit for purpose and if there were justifiable grounds for its termination. The company argued that changes in the industry and workforce composition warranted a revised agreement. The union, on the other hand, contended that the existing agreement was still effective and that any changes should be negotiated rather than unilaterally terminated.

The Fair Work Commission undertook a detailed examination of the evidence presented by both parties. It assessed the changes in the industry, the impact on the workforce, and the overall effectiveness of the existing agreement. The Commission also considered the procedural fairness in the way the application was handled and whether the company had acted in good faith. In its decision, the Commission determined that while some changes in the industry warranted consideration, the existing agreement was still relevant and did not necessitate termination. The application was dismissed on the basis that the company had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for terminating the agreement.

As a result of the decision, the Trustweld Engineering Pty Ltd Workshop Agreement 2006 remains in effect. The Commission's ruling underscores the importance of maintaining procedural fairness and the need for substantive justification when seeking to terminate an enterprise agreement. This outcome ensures that the existing agreement continues to govern the relationship between the company and its employees, barring any future agreement reached through negotiation.

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.