DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Austral Masonry (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Austral Masonry Queensland
(AG2016/4892)

AUSTRAL MASONRY YATALA ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Cement and concrete products
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 20 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Austral Masonry Yatala Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Austral Masonry Yatala Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Austral Masonry (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Austral Masonry Queensland. 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 Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 27 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 September 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Austral Masonry (Qld) Pty Ltd, trading as Austral Masonry Queensland, sought approval of the Austral Masonry Yatala Enterprise Agreement 2016 from the Fair Work Commission. The applicant contended that the agreement should be approved under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009 as a simple or low-risk agreement, exempt from the formal registration process. The application was contested by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, who argued that the agreement should not be approved as it did not meet the requirements of a simple or low-risk agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement qualified as a simple or low-risk agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that the agreement met the criteria for a simple or low-risk agreement as it did not include any new terms or conditions of employment, but rather consolidated existing terms and conditions into a single document. The union contended that the agreement did not qualify as a simple or low-risk agreement as it contained new terms and conditions that were not previously agreed upon.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not qualify as a simple or low-risk agreement. The Commission determined that the agreement contained new terms and conditions of employment that were not previously agreed upon, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a simple or low--risk agreement. The Commission noted that the agreement included new provisions relating to the classification of employees, the calculation of overtime, and the provision of paid parental leave. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not a straightforward consolidation of existing terms and conditions, but rather introduced new terms and conditions that required negotiation and agreement between the parties.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission did not approve the proposed enterprise agreement. The applicant was required to follow the formal registration process to have the agreement approved. The Commission noted that the applicant had the option to revise the agreement to meet the requirements of a simple or low-risk agreement, or to proceed with the formal registration process. The Commission did not make any further orders in relation to the application.

Austral Masonry (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Austral Masonry Queensland

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established