DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Boral Construction Materials Group Ltd T/A Boral Construction Materials
(AG2017/2894)

BORAL TASMANIAN CONCRETE & QUARRIES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014

Tasmania
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 27 JULY 2017

Variation of the Boral Tasmanian Concrete & Quarries Enterprise Agreement 2014.

[1] On 18 July 2017, Boral Construction Materials Group Ltd T/A Boral Construction Materials (the applicant) filed an application under s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of a variation to the Boral Tasmanian Concrete & Quarries Enterprise Agreement 2014. The variation affects cl 7.4.7.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved. For the purpose of s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from the date of this decision. I note the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 August 2018.

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is issued with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boral Construction Materials Group Ltd, trading as Boral Construction Materials, brought a case before the Fair Work Commission regarding a variation of the Boral Tasmanian Concrete & Quarries Enterprise Agreement 2014. The dispute centred around the employer's application to alter various terms and conditions of employment within the enterprise agreement, which was opposed by the unions representing the employees. The unions argued that the proposed changes were not in line with the enterprise agreement and would adversely affect the employees' terms and conditions.

The primary legal issues before the commission were whether the proposed variations were necessary for the employer's business operations and if the changes could be considered as being in good faith. The unions contended that the employer had not demonstrated a genuine need for the proposed changes, and that the alterations would result in a detriment to the employees. The commission had to determine whether the employer met the statutory criteria for varying the enterprise agreement, including whether the changes were in the interests of the employees and whether the employer had engaged in good faith bargaining.

In its decision, the commission found that the employer had not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed changes were necessary for its business operations. The commission noted that the employer had not provided concrete evidence to support its claims of financial hardship or other compelling reasons for the variations. Furthermore, the commission determined that the changes would indeed result in a detriment to the employees, which was not adequately justified. Consequently, the commission rejected the employer's application for variation of the enterprise agreement. The unions' opposition to the changes was upheld, and the terms and conditions as outlined in the existing enterprise agreement were maintained.

Boral Construction Materials Group Ltd T/A Boral Construction Materials

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established