DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/6511)

PRO CONCRETE GROUP PTY LIMITED AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2020–2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2021

Application for approval of the Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020-2022 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 August 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of a collective agreement between the Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for the period 2020-2022. The agreement, which was to be registered as an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009, was contested by the employer who raised several objections regarding the terms and conditions proposed by the union. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the requirements for approval, including its compliance with the procedural fairness and good faith obligations.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the agreement was made in good faith and whether the procedural fairness requirements had been met during the negotiation process. The employer argued that the union had failed to engage in good faith bargaining and had not provided sufficient information to the employer to enable meaningful negotiation. The employer also contended that the union had not allowed for adequate consultation and had acted in a manner that was contrary to the obligations under the Fair Work Act. The union, on the other hand, asserted that the agreement was the product of genuine and meaningful negotiations and that all procedural fairness requirements had been fulfilled.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the negotiation process in detail. The Commission found that while there were procedural shortcomings, the union had ultimately acted in good faith and the agreement reflected a genuine attempt to reach a resolution. The Commission emphasised that the negotiation process, though not perfect, did not fall below the threshold required for an agreement to be approved. Consequently, the Commission decided that the agreement met the statutory requirements and was therefore approved as a registered enterprise agreement. The employer's objections were largely dismissed, and the agreement was registered accordingly.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established