DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5361)

H & R HASSARATI PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

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

Application for variation of the H & R Hassarati Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the H & R Hassarati Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (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] 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 H & R Hassarati Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:

H & R Hassarati 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 7 June 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application by the H & R Hassarati Pty Ltd for a variation of the existing collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian industrial relations tribunal. The central dispute centred around several proposed changes to the existing agreement, which the company sought to implement in order to adapt to current economic conditions and operational needs.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed variations were genuinely necessary and fair, and if the process followed to seek these changes complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that the variations were necessary to ensure business viability and competitiveness, while the union contended that the changes were not genuinely necessary and would adversely affect the employees' conditions. The Commission had to balance the company's need for operational flexibility against the employees' right to fair and just working conditions.

After considering the evidence and arguments from both parties, the Commission found that some of the proposed variations were genuinely necessary and fair. The company had demonstrated that the changes were essential to address financial pressures and market conditions. The Commission also found that the process followed in seeking the variations was procedurally fair and complied with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Commission granted the application in part, allowing certain variations to the collective agreement. These variations included adjustments to work hours, shifts, and some aspects of remuneration, while other proposed changes were rejected as they were not deemed genuinely necessary or fair.

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