DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

UAM Pty Ltd
(AG2017/4080)

UAM PTY LTD & ETU POWERLINE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013-2016

Electrical power industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 6 NOVEMBER 2017

Termination of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

[1] On 8 September 2017, UAM Pty Ltd (UAM) applied for the termination of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 13 September 2017, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU), which is a party to the Agreement, notified my chambers that it opposed UAM’s application. It was the only party to do so. I issued directions to file submissions and evidence on 20 September 2017 following a mention, and the matter proceeded to hearing on 27 October 2017.

[3] At the hearing, the parties advised me that as a result of discussions they had had, the ETU would withdraw its opposition to UAM’s application. The ETU confirmed this via email on 3 November 2017. Accordingly, there is now no opposition to the application.

[4] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[5] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of UAM Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the validity of the termination of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016. The respondents, UAM Pty Ltd, sought to terminate the enterprise agreement, arguing that it was no longer appropriate given changes in the business environment and the financial circumstances of the company. The ETU and other unions opposed the termination, asserting that the conditions for such a termination were not met. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to weigh the arguments from both sides to determine whether the termination was justified.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether UAM Pty Ltd had provided sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the enterprise agreement. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether there had been a significant change in the business circumstances of UAM Pty Ltd that rendered the existing agreement no longer appropriate. This involved examining the evidence provided by UAM Pty Ltd regarding its financial situation, operational changes, and the broader economic context. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the process of terminating the agreement was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission carefully analysed the evidence presented by UAM Pty Ltd. It considered the company's financial statements, the nature of the changes in the business environment, and the impact of these changes on the employees. The Commission found that UAM Pty Ltd had demonstrated a significant change in its business circumstances, which justified the termination of the enterprise agreement. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the process of terminating the agreement was conducted appropriately, with sufficient notice provided to the relevant parties. Therefore, the Commission upheld the termination of the UAM Pty Ltd & ETU Powerline Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission ordered that the termination of the enterprise agreement was lawful and effective. This decision allowed UAM Pty Ltd to implement new terms and conditions for its employees, reflecting the changed business environment and financial circumstances. The Commission's ruling provided clarity for both UAM Pty Ltd and the unions involved, ensuring that the process was conducted in accordance with the relevant legal requirements.

UAM Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established