DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(AG2018/957)

ROODE GROUP PTY LTD AND CEPU PLUMBING DIVISION ROOFING UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2019

Plumbing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	PERTH, 19 APRIL 2018

Application for variation of the Roode Group Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Roofing Union Collective Agreement 2016-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Roode Group Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Roofing Union Collective Agreement 2016-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. 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.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[6] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 19 April 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, seeking variation of the collective agreement between the Roode Group Pty Ltd and the CEPU Plumbing Division Roofing Union. The union sought amendments to the agreement in relation to the classification and remuneration of employees, as well as the implementation of new working conditions. The dispute centred on the union's claim that the current agreement did not adequately reflect the changes in the industry and the needs of its members, particularly in terms of wage increases and job security provisions. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed variations were fair and reasonable, and whether they complied with the relevant legislative framework.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to support the need for variations in the agreement, and whether the proposed changes were consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness. The Commission also had to consider the impact of the proposed variations on the employer and its employees, and whether the changes would promote or hinder harmonious workplace relations. Furthermore, the Commission was required to assess whether the proposed changes were necessary to address any identified deficiencies in the current agreement, and whether the union had followed the appropriate process in seeking the variations.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Fair Work Commission determined that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to support the need for variations in the agreement. The Commission found that the union's claims were speculative and did not adequately demonstrate how the proposed changes would benefit the employees or improve workplace relations. The Commission also found that the union had not followed the appropriate process in seeking the variations, and that the proposed changes were not consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness. As a result, the Commission rejected the union's application for variation of the collective agreement. The Commission did, however, provide guidance to the parties on the appropriate process for seeking future variations, and encouraged them to continue their efforts towards achieving a fair and reasonable agreement.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established