Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2021] FWCA 6140

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2021/7532)

Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 6 OCTOBER 2021

Application for variation of the Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (the Agreement). The application was made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union 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.

A variation was made to the title of the Agreement and throughout the Agreement which replaces the original Agreement title Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:
Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2023

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 6 October 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union sought a variation of the Sunshine Contracting Group Pty Ltd and CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 in the Fair Work Commission. The union and the employer were in dispute over the interpretation and application of certain clauses within the agreement. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the union's application for a variation was justified and warranted. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to justify a variation of the collective agreement. The union argued that changes in economic conditions and workforce requirements necessitated adjustments to the agreement, while the employer contended that the existing terms were still applicable and valid.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the broader economic context. It assessed whether the changes sought by the union were necessary to maintain fairness and equity in the employment relationship. The Commission also examined the principles of good faith bargaining and the need to balance the interests of both employers and employees. Ultimately, the Commission found that the union had not demonstrated a compelling case for a variation of the collective agreement. The existing terms were deemed to remain appropriate given the evidence and the economic circumstances. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the union's application for a variation of the agreement.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established