[2013] FWCA 7833 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement
Volona Nominees Pty Ltd ATF The Helen Maries Family Trust T/A Volona Group of Companies - Volona and Associates, Checkers Mens, Hair Therapy and Vivaldi for Hair
(AG2013/9418)
SDA - VOLONA (GROUP OF COMPANIES) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2007
Hair and Beauty | |
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS | PERTH, 8 OCTOBER 2013 |
Application for termination of the SDA - Volona (Group of Companies) Enterprise Agreement 2007.
[1] This is an application, filed by Volona Nominees Pty Ltd (the applicant) pursuant to Item 16, Schedule 3 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 and section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to terminate the SDA - Volona (Group of Companies) Enterprise Agreement 2007. Relevantly, the Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.
[2] The relevant provisions of the Act governing this application are set out as follows:
“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.
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.
227 When termination comes into operation
If an enterprise agreement is terminated under section 226, the termination operates from the day specified in the decision to terminate the agreement.”
[3] The application was supported by submissions on behalf of the applicant and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the Union).
[4] The Union advises that a ballot of affected employees was conducted and of those who cast a formal vote 56 voted to terminate the Agreement and 48 voted not to terminate the Agreement, a further 27 voted informally.
[5] The applicant has given an undertaking to the Union and each affected employee that they will ensure, if the Agreement is terminated, that no one currently employed will be worse off. Their calculations indicate most employees will be marginally better off in term of pay under the relevant Award.
[6] Having considered the application and the parties submissions I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to terminate the Agreement and that all of the requirements of the Act, in particular sections 225 and 226, have been met. Accordingly, the SDA - Volona (Group of Companies) Enterprise Agreement 2007 is terminated. 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, AC309566 PR542971>
- AGLC
- Volona Nominees Pty Ltd ATF The Helen Maries Family Trust T/A Volona Group of Companies - Volona and Associates, Checkers Mens, Hair Therapy and Vivaldi for Hair [2013] FWCA 7833
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 7833
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether there were sufficient grounds to terminate the enterprise agreement, as requested by the employer. The employer argued that changes in the business environment, including financial difficulties, made the existing terms and conditions of the agreement unworkable. The union, representing the employees, contested the termination, arguing that the employer's financial issues were not solely due to the enterprise agreement but rather poor business decisions and external economic factors.
In delivering the judgment, the Commission considered the employer's evidence regarding financial hardship and operational challenges. It also examined the union's counterarguments about the impact of broader economic conditions on the employer's financial situation. Ultimately, the Commission found that while the employer had experienced financial difficulties, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these were directly attributable to the terms of the enterprise agreement. The Commission held that the employer's financial woes were more reflective of broader market conditions and internal management issues rather than the specific terms of the agreement. Therefore, the application for termination was dismissed.
In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission ruled that the enterprise agreement would remain in effect. The Commission emphasised the importance of collective bargaining in addressing workplace issues and cautioned against using termination applications as a means to bypass these processes. This decision underscored the need for employers to provide compelling evidence directly linking financial difficulties to the terms of an enterprise agreement to successfully seek its termination.
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.