DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5821)

F.T.F PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2020–2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2021

Application for approval of the F.T.F Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020‒2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the F.T.F 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 14 July 2021. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2022.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of a collective agreement with F.T.F Pty Ltd for the years 2020 to 2022. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the necessary legal criteria for approval. The key issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly those concerning the process for making a workplace agreement and the substantive terms of the agreement. The Commission examined whether the agreement was made in accordance with the procedural requirements and whether the substantive terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable.

The Commission found that the agreement was made in accordance with the necessary procedural requirements, including proper notice and consultation processes. However, the substantive terms of the agreement were found to contain several provisions that were deemed unfair or unreasonable. These included certain clauses related to the definition of "working hours" and the entitlement to additional payments under specific circumstances. The Commission highlighted that these provisions could potentially lead to significant variations in employee entitlements and working conditions, which were not adequately justified. As a result, the Commission determined that these provisions did not meet the fairness and reasonableness criteria under the Act.

Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the collective agreement. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that any collective agreement meets both procedural and substantive fairness standards. The Commission's refusal to approve the agreement highlights the need for careful consideration of all terms in collective agreements to ensure they are fair and reasonable for all parties involved. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of compliance with both the procedural and substantive requirements under the Fair Work Act.

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