DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/6165)

SRG BUILDING (NORTHERN) PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 20 JULY 2021

Application for variation of the SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the SRG Building (Northern) 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).

[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 SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:

SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd / 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 20 July 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd for a variation of the Collective Agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for the period 2019-2022. The union opposed the application, asserting that any changes proposed by the employer would detrimentally impact the rights and conditions of employment of the employees covered by the agreement. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the application for variation met the legal criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the application for variation was made in good faith, whether the variation was necessary to permit the employer to operate a viable business, and whether the proposed changes were fair and reasonable. The Commission also had to consider whether the application was consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and whether it complied with the procedural requirements of the Act. The union argued that the application did not meet the statutory requirements and that the proposed changes were not necessary for the employer to operate a viable business.

In reaching its decision, the Commission emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining and the need for any variation to the collective agreement to be fair and reasonable. The Commission found that the application did not meet the statutory requirements for a variation as it did not demonstrate that the changes were necessary to permit the employer to operate a viable business. The Commission also found that the proposed changes would have a detrimental effect on the rights and conditions of employment of the employees and were not in accordance with the principles of good faith bargaining. As a result, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for variation of the collective agreement and ordered that the existing agreement remain in force. The Commission found that the application did not meet the statutory requirements and did not demonstrate that the proposed changes were necessary to permit the employer to operate a viable business. The Commission also found that the application was not in accordance with the principles of good faith bargaining and that the proposed changes would have a detrimental effect on the rights and conditions of employment of the employees. The existing collective agreement remained in force, and the parties were required to continue bargaining in good faith.

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