The Court`s decision upholds Toyota`s decision to obtain the agreement of its employees to amend its enterprise agreement to make it more competitive. However, shortly after Justice Bromberg`s initial decision, Toyota announced plans to close its Australian production in 2017. While the Federal Court of Justice`s decision does not affect Toyota`s operations, it does not mean that the company is no longer at risk of sanctions because of violations of the FW act found in Justice Bromberg`s original decision. Parliament stated that an enterprise agreement could be different and that the employer could, in this regard, apply to its employees, a clause stipulating or stipulating that the employer could not do so, must necessarily be incompatible with the FW Act or, in this respect, repugnant. [paragraph 97] However, the Court criticized the fact that the clause was inconsistent with the right to the spoilability of an enterprise agreement under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The Court as a whole applied the general principle that « … a subordinate instrument which, on the basis of a legal jurisdiction incompatible with the law under which it is made, is invalidated and not in terms of inconsistency. In the motion, the Tribunal found that the Bromberg J court had therefore found an error, finding that the clause was in fact at odds with the modification of the powers of the companies under the FW Act and was therefore invalid. The Tribunal found that Bromberg J. accepted this principle. In addition, they found that Bromberg J.
had considered that the clause had not superseded the ability of Toyota or its employees to access the powers to amend the enterprise agreement under the FW Act, but rather imposed restrictions (for example. B consultation period prior to the continuation of a proposed amendment) on how to access it, which is eligible according to Bromberg J. On December 12, 2013, his Honour Justice Bromberg found that Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited`s (Toyota / the Company) request to amend its enterprise agreement to abolish « obsolete and non-competitive » provisions constituted a violation of the « No further claims » clause in Clause 4 of its enterprise agreement.