Thus, the enterprise agreements that expired contained clauses: the decision is also important for employers in general who, although involved in lengthy negotiations of enterprise contracts, have previously ruled out the potential of a successful application at the end of an expired enterprise agreement in light of the old line of competence. The Commission has ordered that the termination of expired business agreements take effect on 18 May 2015. Tahmoor Coal`s central reasoning has been expressly repealed, with the full bench stating that there is no legal imperative, that the promotion and provision of productivity benefits at the enterprise level must be obtained in the first place or exclusively by the negotiation of good faith enterprises and not by other means. The full-fledged bank also provided that the statutes provide that, at the request of the person concerned, an agreement that has exceeded its nominal expiry date must be terminated if the circumstances mentioned in Section 226 are met and that productivity gains could also be achieved by terminating an agreement that has exceeded its nomi expiry date. One of the factors that influenced Full Bench`s finding in this regard was the particular situation in which the agreements were concluded (to the extent that the Queensland government required Aurizon to grant guarantees to workers and formalize these guarantees in its enterprise agreements as part of this privatization process). Full Bench found that the provisions that Aurizon had attempted to remove or amend are not general provisions of the enterprise agreement and are provisions limiting Aurizon`s ability to effectively manage its labour needs. While the importance of enterprise agreements in regulating employment conditions cannot be rebutted by law, there is no evidence in the law that the existence of a pre-negotiated enterprise agreement necessarily promotes collective bargaining. Perhaps the best place to conclude is simply to quote a central paragraph of the Full Bench decision – a paragraph that reflects the position that Aurizon had always defended during his efforts to reach an agreement with the unions: the enterprise agreements that expired contained a number of conditions that were ”legacy rules” applicable to QR Limited , while it remained under the ownership of the state government. In July 2014, Aurizon published three enterprise agreements for trade unions.
The three proposed agreements were: ”Aurizon employees voted in favour of a new Coal Enterprise agreement,” Aurizon said Monday in an email to S-P Global Platts. 81.2% of workers covered by the proposed agreement voted ”yes” in the 19 July vote. The unions` argument that the termination of enterprise agreements is contrary to the objective of a fair framework for collective bargaining has been rejected. The unions also requested a review of the Commission`s decision on the grounds that, in the public interest opinion within the meaning of S 226 bis of the Act, the Commission had failed to take into account a ”substantial relevant consideration” by failing to take into account the effects of the termination of enterprise agreements on an access project submitted by Aurizon under state competition law. Section 226 of the Act provides that the Commission must denounce an enterprise agreement if: Aurizon, an Australian coal railway employee, ends a dispute over the enterprise agreement On 22 April 2015, in an innovative decision, a full bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) at Aurizon Operations Limited; Aurizon Network Pty Ltd; Australia Eastern Railroad Pty Ltd  FWCFB 540 has decided to respond to Aurizon`s request for the termination of its 12 expired corporate contracts.