DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd
(AG2016/646)

ASURCO CONTRACTING PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 - 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015 – 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 26 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 18 May 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd, an applicant, sought the approval of an Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, a small construction company, argued that the agreement fairly reflected the terms and conditions of employment for its workforce. The dispute centred on whether the agreement was appropriate for the workers and whether it complied with relevant labour laws. The Commission, led by Commissioner Bennett, was tasked with evaluating the fairness and compliance of the proposed agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable, whether it adhered to the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it was consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Commission also had to consider the views of the parties involved, particularly the representatives of the employees, and assess whether the agreement met the standard of being "better off overall" for the workforce. The central question was whether the proposed terms and conditions in the agreement were fair and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the industry, the bargaining positions of the parties, and the broader economic context.

The Commission found that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and thus approved it. The decision was based on the comprehensive nature of the agreement, which covered various aspects of employment, including wages, hours of work, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Commission acknowledged the good faith efforts of both parties in negotiating the agreement and noted that it provided employees with benefits that were at least as good as, if not better than, the existing awards. The Commission also considered the economic conditions and the specific circumstances of the industry, concluding that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and did not unfairly disadvantage either party.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018, subject to certain conditions. The agreement was set to be registered, and the parties were required to comply with the terms outlined in the approved agreement. The Commission also directed that any disputes arising from the agreement would be subject to the internal dispute resolution processes outlined in the agreement, with the option for escalation to the Commission if necessary. The decision was a significant step forward for the parties, providing a clear framework for the terms and conditions of employment for the duration of the agreement.

Asurco Contracting Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established