DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5987)

MILLENNIUM CARPENTRY SERVICES PTY LIMITED / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 23 JULY 2021

Application for variation of the Millennium Carpentry Services Pty Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Millennium Carpentry Services Pty Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement in accordance with Annexure A to this decision.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the FW Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met including, without limitation, that the Agreement as varied continues to pass the better off overall test.

[4] A variation was made to the title of the Agreement with the consequence that, throughout the Agreement, the original Agreement title “Millennium Carpentry Services Pty Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022” has been replaced with the following:

Millennium Carpentry Services 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 23 July 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Millennium Carpentry Services Pty Limited for a variation of the existing collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The company sought amendments primarily concerning working hours, overtime, and shift patterns, arguing that the current agreement was no longer suitable for its operational needs and market conditions. The CFMEU opposed these changes, asserting that they would negatively impact employees' work-life balance and job security.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the proposed changes were justified under the Fair Work Act and whether the company had adequately demonstrated that the amendments were necessary for its business operations. The Commission also had to consider the impact of the proposed changes on the employees and whether the company had complied with the relevant provisions of the existing collective agreement regarding the process for proposing variations. The core of the dispute centred on balancing the employer's right to manage its business with the employees' rights to fair treatment and protection under the collective agreement.

In its decision, the Commission found that while the company had presented a reasonable case for the need to amend certain aspects of the agreement, it had not sufficiently justified the extent of the proposed changes. The Commission concluded that some of the changes were necessary to accommodate operational requirements, but others were either unnecessary or could be addressed through a less drastic alteration. The Commission also emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair process for consultation and negotiation with the union. Ultimately, the Commission allowed certain variations but rejected others, issuing a detailed order outlining the specific changes to be implemented in the collective agreement.

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