Built Environs Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1904

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Built Environs Pty Ltd
(AG2013/5691)

BUILT ENVIRONS PTY LTD / CFMEU SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 28 MARCH 2013

Built Environs Pty Ltd / CFMEU South Australian Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Built Environs Pty Ltd / CFMEU South Australian Collective Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Built Environs Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 5 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Built Environs Pty Ltd, a company engaged in the construction industry, brought a case against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) South Australia Branch, regarding the interpretation of the CFMEU South Australian Collective Agreement 2013. The dispute arose over the classification and wage entitlements of employees working on a specific project. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard the matter.

The central legal issues revolved around the correct interpretation of certain clauses within the collective agreement, specifically those pertaining to employee classification and associated wage rates. The crux of the matter was whether employees on the project were entitled to higher wages under a particular clause of the agreement or if they were correctly classified under a lower wage bracket. The court needed to determine whether the wording of the agreement, when read in its entirety and in light of its objectives and context, supported the company's or the union's interpretation.

The court examined the collective agreement meticulously, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used and the context in which they appeared. It found that the agreement's language was clear and unambiguous when viewed in its entirety. The court held that the employees were indeed entitled to the higher wage rates as per the union's interpretation, as the language of the agreement supported this classification. Consequently, the company's claim was dismissed. The court's decision was that the employees were to be compensated at the higher rate, aligning with the union's stance on the classification under the collective agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established