DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4868)

TILE LOGISTICS PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 8 JUNE 2021

Application for variation of the Tile Logistics Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Tile Logistics Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019 (the Agreement). The application was made by 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] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any affected employee for the variation and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the variation. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[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 8 June 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tile Logistics Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission to vary the Tile Logistics Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019, which was in force at the time of the application. The matter was heard by the Commission in Sydney. The primary dispute centred around the terms of the collective agreement, specifically seeking changes to provisions governing employee rostering, overtime entitlements, and the classification of certain roles within the company. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes were not justified and would adversely affect the employees' conditions.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed variations were necessary and fair, and if they complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine if the application met the criteria for variation under the Act, which includes ensuring that the changes would not have an adverse effect on the employees' conditions and that the application process was followed correctly. The Commission also considered the impact of the changes on the employees' work-life balance and overall fairness in the workplace.

The Commission found that the application did not meet the criteria for variation as it was not in the best interest of the employees and would result in a significant adverse effect on their conditions. The proposed changes to rostering and overtime entitlements were deemed unnecessary, as they did not address any genuine operational requirements of Tile Logistics Pty Ltd. Additionally, the reclassification of certain roles was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the potential impact on employees' job security and career progression was not adequately addressed. The Commission concluded that the application did not satisfy the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and therefore, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that any proposed changes to a collective agreement are fair and reasonable, and that they do not adversely affect employees' conditions. The Commission also highlighted the need for employers to provide sufficient evidence to support any proposed changes, particularly when it comes to reclassification of roles and changes to rostering and overtime entitlements. The decision serves as a reminder to both employers and unions of the importance of engaging in good faith negotiations and reaching agreements that are in the best interests of all parties involved.

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