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

Case [2016] FWCA 7429


[2016] FWCA 7429
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Veolia Environmental Services
(AG2016/6186)

VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WA, WORSLEY ALUMINA REFINERY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 14 OCTOBER 2016

Application for termination of the Veolia Environmental Services WA, Worsley Alumina Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015.

[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 WA, Worsley Alumina Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015 (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 the Senior Human Resource Advisor of the applicant.

[6] Mr McGerr explains that the Agreement had a nominal expiry date of 14 May 2014 and that the applicant no longer employs any person covered under the Agreement as it no longer provided services to the particular client and it is no envisaged that any services will be provided in the near future.

[7] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) was invited to provide its view on the application and has advised it does not oppose the application.

[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 WA, Worsley Alumina Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015 is terminated and pursuant to section 227 of the Act, the termination is to take effect on and from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE893977  PR586472>

Details
AGLC
Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Veolia Environmental Services [2016] FWCA 7429
Case
[2016] FWCA 7429
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Veolia Environmental Services, applied to the Fair Work Commission for the termination of the Veolia Environmental Services WA, Worsley Alumina Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2012-2015. The applicant contended that there were insufficient employees covered by the agreement to maintain its registration. The Fair Work Commission considered the application and the relevant legal issues.

The central legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the enterprise agreement in question met the statutory requirements for continued registration, particularly concerning the number of employees required to maintain its validity. The applicant argued that the agreement should be terminated because it did not cover enough employees to meet the minimum threshold for registration. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was still applicable and valid based on the current employee numbers and other relevant factors.

The Fair Work Commission examined the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and found that the agreement was still validly registered as it met the necessary employee threshold. The Commission took into account the total number of employees covered by the agreement and concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed. No further orders were made by the Commission.

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.