Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

[2021] FWCA 6424

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/7921)

CITY RENDERING PTY. LIMITED / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 26 OCTOBER 2021

Application for variation of the City Rendering Pty. Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the City Rendering Pty. Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (the Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union 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] 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.

[4] A variation was made to the title of the Agreement and throughout the Agreement which replaces the original Agreement title City Rendering Pty. Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:

City Rendering Pty. Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2023

[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 26 October 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and City Rendering Pty. Limited. The Union applied for a variation to the existing Collective Agreement between the parties, which covered the period from 2019 to 2022. The primary focus of the application was to address certain changes in the workplace environment that the Union argued warranted amendments to the terms and conditions outlined in the current agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed changes to the Collective Agreement were necessary and reasonable, given the evolving circumstances of the workplace. The Union argued that the changes were essential to accommodate new operational realities and to ensure fair treatment for employees. Conversely, the employer contested the necessity and proportionality of some of the proposed changes, asserting that certain requests were excessive and not warranted by the current conditions.

The Fair Work Commission carefully considered the submissions from both parties, examining the evidence and arguments presented regarding the changes to the workplace environment. The Commission found that while some of the changes proposed by the Union were justified, others were not. The Commission concluded that a balanced approach was necessary, which would reflect the need for adaptation while also protecting the employer's interests. Ultimately, the Commission varied the Collective Agreement to incorporate certain changes proposed by the Union, while rejecting others that it deemed unnecessary or disproportionate.

The final orders of the Commission included specific amendments to the Collective Agreement, reflecting the changes that were deemed necessary and reasonable. These orders provided clarity on the updated terms and conditions that would govern the workplace for the remainder of the agreement period. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced approach in collective bargaining, ensuring that both parties' interests are appropriately considered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established