DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Veolia Environmental Services
(AG2018/5857)

VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WHEATSTONE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 TO 2017

Waste management industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 2 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for termination of the Veolia Environmental Services Wheatstone Enterprise Agreement 2013 to 2017.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Veolia Environmental Services (the Applicant) for the termination of the Veolia Environmental Services Wheatstone Enterprise Agreement 2013 to 2017 (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 Michael McGerr (Mr McGerr) who is a Senior Human Resources Advisor of the Applicant.

[6] Mr McGerr explains that the Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 1 August 2017 and that no employee is covered by the Agreement as the Applicant has fully demobilised from the major construction project to which this Agreement pertains to.

[7] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) was invited to provide its view on the application but it has not sought to make a submission.

[8] The Applicant submits that in the circumstances terminating the Agreement would not be contrary to 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 views of the employer and accepting the Applicant’s statement that there are no employees covered by the Agreement, which has not been challenged by the AWU, I do consider in the circumstances here that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement.

[11] Accordingly, the Veolia Environmental Services Wheatstone Enterprise Agreement 2013 to 2017 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Veolia Environmental Services, applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the Veolia Environmental Services Wheatstone Enterprise Agreement 2013 to 2017. The applicant argued that the agreement should be terminated on the grounds that the union representing the employees was no longer effectively representing the employees and that there were significant changes in the business that warranted renegotiation of the agreement. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union was the respondent and opposed the application, asserting that the union remained effectively representative of the employees and that there were no substantial changes in the business to justify termination.

The legal issues before the Fair Work Commission were whether the union remained effectively representative of the employees and whether there had been significant changes in the business that warranted termination of the agreement. The commission considered evidence regarding the union's effectiveness in representing the employees and the extent of changes in the business. The commission also considered the parties' bargaining positions and the impact of any termination on the employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union remained effectively representative of the employees and that there had not been significant changes in the business that warranted termination of the agreement. The commission considered that the union had a strong and active presence in the workplace and that the employees had a high level of confidence in the union's ability to represent them. The commission also found that the changes in the business were not substantial enough to warrant renegotiation of the agreement. The commission emphasised the importance of maintaining stable and effective enterprise agreements to promote industrial peace and avoid unnecessary disruption to the workplace.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for termination of the agreement. The commission considered that the agreement remained a fair and reasonable agreement for the employees and that terminating it would not be in the best interests of the employees or the business. The commission emphasised the importance of maintaining stable and effective enterprise agreements to promote industrial peace and avoid unnecessary disruption to the workplace. The commission also noted that any changes to the agreement should be negotiated through the normal bargaining process, rather than through an application for termination.

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Veolia Environmental Services

DECISION

Consideration

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established