DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd
(AG2016/1283)

COFORDO 295 PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 21 June 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 June 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 21 June 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to approve an enterprise agreement proposed by the employer, Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd, and its employees. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the proposed agreement, which the employer sought to have officially recognised and binding. The employees, represented by a union, had negotiated the terms and sought to ensure that they were fair and in line with broader industrial standards. The court had to determine whether the agreement met the legal criteria for approval, including whether it provided for a safety net of minimum terms and conditions, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the enterprise agreement was made genuinely and in good faith, and whether it provided for a safety net of minimum terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court examined the negotiation process, the content of the agreement, and whether it complied with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the agreement contained terms that were beneficial to the employees and whether any detriments were justified. The court also assessed whether the agreement met the threshold criteria for coverage, ensuring that it was not overly restrictive or punitive towards employees.

In its decision, the court found that the enterprise agreement was made genuinely and in good faith, with no evidence of coercion or unfair bargaining practices. The agreement was deemed to provide for a safety net of minimum terms and conditions, meeting the statutory requirements. The court was satisfied that the terms were fair and reasonable, taking into account the specific circumstances of the workplace and the bargaining positions of the parties. The court also noted that the agreement included provisions that were beneficial to the employees, such as improved leave entitlements and better working conditions. Based on these findings, the court approved the enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Cofordo 295 Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 be approved and registered, effective from the date of the decision. The agreement would now serve as the governing document for the terms and conditions of employment for the employees covered by the agreement, replacing any previous agreements or awards. This decision provided clarity and legal certainty for both the employer and employees, ensuring that the agreement was binding and enforceable.

Cofordo 295 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