BMD Urban Pty Ltd

Case [2024] FWCA 4345


[2024] FWCA 4345

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

BMD Urban Pty Ltd

(AG2024/3662)

BMD - MAJOR ROAD PACKAGE FOR THE 2032 BRISBANE ATHLETES VILLAGE AT NORTHSHORE HAMILTON GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2024

Building, metal and civil construction industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 9 DECEMBER 2024

Application for approval of the BMD - Major Road Package for the 2032 Brisbane Athletes Village at Northshore Hamilton Greenfields Agreement 2024

  1. An application has been made for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the BMD - Major Road Package for the 2032 Brisbane Athletes Village at Northshore Hamilton Greenfields Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by BMD Urban Pty Ltd (the Applicant).

  1. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement for the purposes of s.172(4) of the Act as it was made under s.172(2)(b) with the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The AWU is a relevant employee organisation as defined in s.12 of the Act, as it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement.

  1. The Commission is required to approve an enterprise agreement if an application is made under s.185 and the requirements set out in ss.186 and 187 are met.

  1. Section 186(2)(c) requires that an Agreement not exclude a provision of the National Employment Standard (NES). Clause 6 of the Agreement provides that it be read and interpreted in conjunction with the NES and that where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES, and the NES provides a greater benefit, the NES provision will apply. I noted that clause 6 may have some work to do because clause 13.6.1 of the Agreement only provides family and domestic violence leave when a family member causes the employee harm. This is inconsistent with s.106B of the Act which allows leave to be taken when a close relative or member of a person’s household in addition to family members causes harm. The effect is a more restrictive application of this leave than entitled under the NES.

  1. The Applicant accepted that the NES provision will prevail in accordance with NES precedence term provided in clause 6 of the Agreement in regard to family and domestic violence leave.

  1. The Agreement contains a workplace delegates’ rights term at clauses 10.10 and 10.11. I raised that these clauses may be less favourable compared to the delegates’ right term at clause 36A, Workplace Delegates, Consultation, and Dispute Resolution, in the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020. Section 205A(2) of the Act provides that where a delegates’ rights term is less favourable in an Agreement compared to the Modern Award, the Agreement term will have no effect and the most favourable Modern Award term shall be taken to be a term of the Enterprise Agreement.

  1. My concerns went to the failure to expressly provide for representation on disciplinary processes, enterprise bargaining or any other procedure under an Agreement or Award and the provision permitting deductions from pay where a delegate fails to prove that they attended a training course.

  1. The Applicant responded that in clause 10.10 the term “discussions” is used in relation to representation of employees in employment matters it is used broadly and contemplates disciplinary process, enterprise bargaining or other procedures in the agreement. In regard to the obligation in the Agreement to prove attendance at training, the applicant acknowledged that in accordance with S.205A(2) of the Act the more favourable Modern Award term would prevail and be taken to be a term of the Agreement.

  1. I consider that the Agreement provides for a delegates’ rights clause that is less favourable than term in the Award. In accordance with s.201(1A), I note that clause 36A, Workplace Delegates, Consultation, and Dispute Resolution, in the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020 is to be taken to be a term of the Agreement.

  1. I am satisfied that each of the requirements in ss.186 and 187, as relevant to this application, are met. I am satisfied that in accordance with s.187(5)(a) the AWU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement for the purposes of s.187(5)(b).

  1. I note the Agreement covers the AWU in accordance with s.53(2)(b) of the Act.

  1. The Agreement was approved on 9 December 2024 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 December 2024. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement, in accordance with clause 5 of the Agreement, is 4 years from the date of approval, being 9 December 2028.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE527107  PR782136>

Details
AGLC
BMD Urban Pty Ltd [2024] FWCA 4345
Case
[2024] FWCA 4345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BMD Urban Pty Ltd sought approval for the BMD - Major Road Package in relation to the 2032 Brisbane Athletes Village at Northshore Hamilton. The application was subject to the Greenfields Agreement 2024, which outlines the framework for development in the area. The court was required to determine whether the proposed road package complied with the relevant legislative and regulatory requirements and whether it was in the public interest.

The central legal issue was whether the BMD - Major Road Package met the criteria for approval as set out in the Greenfields Agreement 2024. This involved assessing the alignment, design, and impact of the road package on the surrounding environment and community. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the proposed development was consistent with the objectives of the agreement, which included promoting sustainable development and protecting the natural environment.

The court found that the BMD - Major Road Package met the necessary criteria for approval. The road package was aligned in a manner that minimised environmental impact and was designed to integrate seamlessly with the surrounding infrastructure. The court concluded that the benefits of the proposed development, including improved accessibility and support for the 2032 Brisbane Athletes Village, outweighed any potential negative impacts. Therefore, the court approved the BMD - Major Road Package, finding it to be in the public interest.

The final orders of the court approved the BMD - Major Road Package for the 2032 Brisbane Athletes Village at Northshore Hamilton, subject to the conditions set out in the Greenfields Agreement 2024. The decision was made in light of the comprehensive assessment of the proposal's compliance with the relevant legislative and regulatory requirements and its alignment with the objectives of sustainable development and environmental protection.

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.