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

[2025] FWCA 1106

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

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

(AG2025/602)

LINDORES PERSONNEL NO.2 PTY LTD AND CEPU PLUMBING DIVISION MECHANICAL UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2023 – 2026

Plumbing industry
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 3 APRIL 2025

Application for variation of the Lindores Personnel No.2 Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Mechanical Union Collective Agreement 2023 – 2026

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Lindores Personnel No.2 Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Mechanical Union Collective Agreement 2023 – 2026 (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).

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

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

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

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 3 April 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought a variation of the Lindores Personnel No.2 Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Mechanical Union Collective Agreement 2023 – 2026. The union argued that the agreement did not adequately provide for the fair and reasonable treatment of its members, specifically in relation to the scheduling of work and the allocation of overtime.

The central legal issues before the commission were whether the collective agreement was deficient in ensuring fair treatment and whether there were grounds to justify a variation of the agreement to address these concerns. The union contended that the agreement lacked provisions for fair scheduling practices and did not sufficiently address the equitable distribution of overtime work, which they argued negatively impacted their members' work-life balance and overall wellbeing.

The commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the current provisions of the collective agreement. It was noted that while the agreement contained some provisions relating to work scheduling and overtime, these were not as comprehensive as the union desired. The commission determined that there were valid concerns regarding the fairness and reasonableness of the work scheduling practices and overtime distribution. Consequently, the commission found that a variation of the agreement was warranted to address these issues and ensure better protection of the union members' interests. The commission ordered specific amendments to the collective agreement to include more detailed provisions on work scheduling and the equitable allocation of overtime, aiming to provide clearer guidelines and protections for the union members.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established