DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/6126)

SURFSIDE POOL CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2020–2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2021

Application for approval of the Surfside Pool Constructions Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Surfside Pool Constructions Pty Ltd 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 28 July 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 was an application for the approval of a collective agreement between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Surfside Pool Constructions Pty Ltd. The agreement was for the period 2020-2022 and was intended to govern the terms and conditions of employment for the workers in Surfside Pool Constructions Pty Ltd. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was genuinely a product of bargaining between the parties, whether it contained the minimum terms and conditions prescribed by the relevant Award, and whether it met the criteria for being a protected action ballot agreement. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement complied with the requirements for good faith bargaining and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission found that the agreement was genuinely a product of bargaining between the parties and contained the minimum terms and conditions prescribed by the relevant Award. The agreement was also found to be a protected action ballot agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement met the criteria for good faith bargaining and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission approved the agreement and made an order for its registration.

The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented by the parties and the applicable legal principles. The Commission found that the agreement was a genuine product of bargaining and contained the minimum terms and conditions prescribed by the relevant Award. The Commission also found that the agreement met the criteria for good faith bargaining and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission approved the agreement and made an order for its registration.

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