DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5156)

THE TRUSTEE FOR HITEC GLAZING TRUST T/AS HITEC GLAZING PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2020-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2021

Application for approval of The Trustee for Hitec Glazing Trust T/As Hitec Glazing Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Trustee for Hitec Glazing Trust T/As Hitec Glazing 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 2 June 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 Trustee for the Hitec Glazing Trust, trading as Hitec Glazing Pty Ltd, applied for the approval of a collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, where the central dispute revolved around the validity and appropriateness of certain provisions within the proposed agreement. The crux of the matter was whether the provisions adhered to the requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and the implications for the employees.

The court was tasked with examining several key issues, including whether the agreement was made in good faith, whether there was adequate consultation between the parties, and whether the provisions within the agreement were reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the agreement adequately protected the interests of the employees and complied with the statutory framework governing industrial relations in Australia.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the extensive evidence presented by both parties. The court acknowledged the Trustee's efforts in negotiating the agreement and the Union's role in representing the employees. However, the court found that certain provisions did not meet the statutory standards, particularly in terms of procedural fairness and the protection of employee interests. The court determined that the Trustee had not adequately consulted with the employees before negotiating the agreement, which was a critical failing. Consequently, the court refused to approve the collective agreement as it stood, highlighting the necessity for adherence to procedural requirements and the protection of employee rights within the industrial relations framework.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission mandated that the Trustee and the CFMEU revisit the negotiation process, ensuring that all procedural requirements are met, and that the interests of the employees are adequately protected. The court outlined specific steps that needed to be undertaken to rectify the deficiencies identified in the original agreement, including the requirement for further consultation and the potential for employee input into the revised agreement. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with the Fair Work Act and the critical role of procedural fairness in the negotiation of industrial agreements.

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