DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Macmahon Contractors Pty Ltd
(C2018/2003)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN
COMMISSIONER LEE

SYDNEY, 27 JULY 2018

Appeal against decision [2018] FWCA 1838 of Commissioner Williams at Perth on 28 March 2018 in matter number AG2017/4173.

Application to vary the Macmahon Byerwen Agreement 2017

Introduction

[1] The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) has lodged an appeal, for which permission to appeal is necessary, against a decision of Commissioner Williams issued on 28 March 2018 1 (Decision) in which he approved, subject to the acceptance of an undertaking, the Macmahon Byerwen Agreement 2017 (Agreement). The CFMMEU’s notice of appeal identifies three grounds of appealable error. First, it contends that the Commissioner erred in finding that the Agreement passed the better off overall test (BOOT), as required by s 186(2)(d) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), in that it was determined that the wage rates in Schedule A were sufficient to pass the BOOT in respect of the various rostering arrangements permissible under clause 10.16 of the Agreement. Second, it contends that clause 13, Abandonment of Employment of the Agreement was an unlawful term pursuant to ss 186(4) and 194 of the FW Act or, alternatively, contravened s 55 of the FW Act because it was inconsistent with s 117(1) and (2), and the Commissioner erred in finding otherwise. Third, it contends that the Commissioner erred in failing to find that the undertaking which he accepted constituted a substantial change to the Agreement and was incapable of acceptance under s 190(3)(b) of the FW Act, with the result that the application for approval of the Agreement should have been dismissed.

[2] We will deal with each of the grounds of appeal in turn.

First appeal ground

[3] The CFMMEU’s first contention of error turns on an issue of the proper interpretation of clause 10.16 of the Agreement read together with the wage rate schedule in Schedule A (as modified by increased rates provided for in the undertaking). The wage rate schedule sets out, for the specified classifications, a “Minimum All Purpose Hourly Rate”, as well as a “Minimum Base Rate”, applicable to each of three identified roster patterns: “7 days 7 off 7 nights 7 off”, “7 days 7 off”, “5 days 2 off”. Clause 19.1 provides that all categories of employees will be paid at least the applicable all purpose hourly rate in Schedule A for each “Rostered Hour” worked. The expression “Rostered Hours” is defined in clause 2 as follows: “Includes an Employee's Ordinary Hours plus Rostered Overtime”. “Rostered Overtime” is defined in clause 2 to mean: “…additional hours (additional to Ordinary Hours) which the Company reasonably requires the Employee to work as part of a Roster Cycle”. The all purpose…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CFMMEU v Macmahon Contractors Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FWCFB 4429
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between CFMMEU and Macmahon Contractors Pty Ltd came before the court as an appeal against a decision made by Commissioner Williams at the Perth Registry on 28 March 2018, in matter number AG2017/4173. The dispute revolves around issues concerning employment rights and conditions, specifically pertaining to the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the decision of the Commissioner was correct in law, whether there were any errors of fact, and whether the decision was unreasonable. The core of the appeal was centred around the interpretation of the Fair Work Act and its application to the specific circumstances of the employment dispute between the parties.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully reviewed the arguments presented by both sides. It examined the evidence and legal precedents to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the Commissioner's decision was indeed correct in law and did not contain any errors of fact. The reasoning of the Commissioner was deemed logical and consistent with the applicable legal framework. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the original decision of the Commissioner remains in place, and the appeal by CFMMEU against the decision [2018] FWCA 1838 is dismissed in its entirety. The court's ruling reinforces the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act as determined by the Commissioner.

Orders