Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

[2025] FWCA 2082

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

(AG2025/1835)

MAGEE COATINGS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) SUBCONTRACTORS PAINTING & DECORATING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024 - 2027

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL	MELBOURNE, 25 JUNE 2025

Application for approval of the MAGEE COATINGS PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Subcontractors Painting & Decorating Enterprise Agreement 2024 – 2027 – s.218A variation to correct or amend obvious error.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MAGEE COATINGS PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Subcontractors Painting & Decorating Enterprise Agreement 2024 - 2027 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

Having regard to the material contained in the application and filed in relation to it, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188, 193 and 193A 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 sections 186(3) and (3A), I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

The CFMEU, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement lodged appeared to contain an error in clause 1 of the Agreement regarding the Agreement title. Agreement clause 1 provides that the Agreement title is “MAGEE COATINGS PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Builder Enterprise Agreement 2024 – 2027”. I wrote to the parties noting that the reference to “Builder” in the title appeared to be a typographical error and should instead refer to “Subcontractors Painting & Decorating”, and if that assumption was correct, I intended to amend the title clause of the Agreement on my own initiative pursuant to s.218A of the Act as an ‘obvious error’, so that the Agreement title in clause 1 reads ‘MAGEE COATINGS PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Subcontractors Painting & Decorating Enterprise Agreement 2024 – 2027”. Parties were provided an opportunity to advise my Chambers if they disagreed with this proposed course of action. No objection was received and the CFMEU provided a corrected copy of the Agreement for publication. I am satisfied the incorrect title in clause 1 is an obvious error and I now amend the Agreement accordingly pursuant to s.218A of the Act. The published Agreement will contain the correction described above.

The Agreement was approved on 25 June 2025 and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 2 July 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 July 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEUU) and Magee Coatings Pty Ltd were before the court to seek approval of a variation to their enterprise agreement. The agreement in question, the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Subcontractors Painting & Decorating Enterprise Agreement 2024-2027, was to be amended to correct what was identified as an obvious error. The application was made under section 218A of the relevant legislation, seeking to amend the agreement to rectify the error.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed variation was an appropriate correction of an obvious error and whether the process for seeking approval had been correctly followed. The CFMEU and Magee Coatings Pty Ltd argued that the error was clear and that the variation was necessary to ensure the agreement accurately reflected the intentions of the parties. They also argued that the proper procedures for seeking approval had been adhered to.

The court found that the proposed variation was indeed a correction of an obvious error and that the process for seeking approval had been correctly followed. The court was satisfied that the error was clear and that the correction was necessary to ensure the agreement accurately reflected the intentions of the parties. The court approved the variation, allowing the correction to be made to the enterprise agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established