| [2022] FWCA 1513 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
Viva Energy Refining Pty Ltd
(AG2021/6742)
Shell Clyde and Gore Bay Terminal Power & Process Control Enterprise Agreement 2012
| Oil and gas industry | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2022 |
Application for termination of the Shell Clyde and Gore Bay Terminal Power & Process Control Enterprise Agreement 2012
Viva Energy Refining Pty Ltd (Applicant) has applied, pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act), to terminate the Shell Clyde and Gore Bay Terminal Power & Process Control Enterprise Agreement 2012 (Agreement).[1] The Agreement is expressed to cover the Applicant and its employees classified under the Agreement employed at Clyde Refinery and/or Gore Bay Terminal sites, including after refining and manufacturing operations cease, and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). [2]
The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.[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.”
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.”
In support of the application, Ms K Milne of the Applicant provided a declaration dated 22 December 2022. The declaration states, inter alia, that the Agreement historically covered employees who performed engineering trade related work at the Clyde and Gore Bay terminal but that no employees are currently employed under the Agreement.
As mentioned above, the CEPU is an organisation which is covered by the Agreement. On 18 August 2021, my Chambers sent correspondence to the CEPU requesting it to advise whether it objects to the application by 25 August 2021. On 31 August 2021, my chambers followed up on this correspondence, seeking a response as soon as possible. On 15 September 2021 my Chambers sent further correspondence to the CEPU seeking a response. On 19 October 2021 my Associate called the CEPU and again asked them to provide a response as soon as possible. No response has been received.
Based on the material contained in the employer’s declaration, 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 s.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 termination of the Agreement. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the termination of the Agreement, and I terminate the Agreement.
The termination will operate from 5 May 2022.
An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued in PR741244.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] AE898032
[2] Ibid at cl 1.4
[3] Ibid at cl 1.4.3
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE898032 PR741243>
- AGLC
- Viva Energy Refining Pty Ltd [2022] FWCA 1513
- Case
- [2022] FWCA 1513
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Viva Energy could demonstrate that the changes to the enterprise agreement were necessary to achieve a significant economic outcome for the company and whether the changes were consistent with the principles of the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to weigh the company's need for flexibility against the rights of the employees protected by the existing agreement. The Commission also needed to consider whether the proposed changes would have a detrimental effect on the employees.
In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the broader economic context. The Commission found that Viva Energy had not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary to achieve a significant economic outcome. The Commission also noted that the proposed changes would have a detrimental effect on the employees. Accordingly, the Commission rejected the application for termination. The Commission's reasoning emphasised the importance of balancing the needs of the employer with the rights of the employees, and the necessity for a strong evidentiary basis to support any proposed changes to an enterprise agreement. The Commission's decision upheld the existing enterprise agreement, ensuring that the employees' rights were protected.
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.