DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

CA Property Group Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2432)

CA PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 22 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the CA Property Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CA Property Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by CA Property Group 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] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 29 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 March 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CA Property Group Pty Ltd, sought approval for the CA Property Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020, which had been negotiated between the applicant and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The dispute arose as the applicant contended that the Fair Work Commission did not have jurisdiction to approve the agreement due to the union's failure to meet the necessary representation threshold. The matter was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's representation threshold was met, thereby granting the Fair Work Commission jurisdiction to approve the enterprise agreement. The court had to consider the relevant legislative provisions and the evidence provided by both parties regarding the union's representation within the bargaining unit. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's contention that the union did not have a sufficient basis for its claim of representation was valid.

The court found that the union had met the representation threshold, as evidenced by the union's application for authorisation to bargain and the subsequent ballot results. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the union had not met the necessary threshold, holding that the union's application and the ballot results demonstrated sufficient representation. The court also dismissed the applicant's contention that the union had not met its burden of proof regarding the representation threshold, finding that the union had provided adequate evidence to support its claim. The court concluded that the Fair Work Commission had jurisdiction to approve the enterprise agreement.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia approved the CA Property Group Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020, dismissing the applicant's application for a declaration that the Fair Work Commission lacked jurisdiction to approve the agreement. The court found that the union had met the necessary representation threshold and that the applicant's arguments regarding the union's representation were without merit. The agreement was therefore approved, and the union's authority to negotiate and enter into the agreement was affirmed.

CA Property Group 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