DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5186)

MATT DALLEY DEMOLITION PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 21 MAY 2021

Application for variation of the Matt Dalley Demolition Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Matt Dalley Demolition Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement in accordance with Annexure A to this decision.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the FW Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met including, without limitation, that the Agreement as varied continues to pass the better off overall test.

[4] A variation was made to the title of the Agreement with the consequence that, throughout the Agreement, the original Agreement title “Matt Dalley Demolition Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022” has been replaced with the following:

Matt Dalley Demolition 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 21 May 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Matt Dalley Demolition Pty Ltd to vary a collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment within the demolition industry, specifically regarding the classification of workers and the associated pay rates.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed variations to the collective agreement were procedurally fair and whether they met the threshold for being in the best interests of the employees. The applicant argued that changes were necessary to remain competitive in the market and to accurately reflect the skills and roles of the workforce. The CFMEU, on the other hand, contended that the proposed changes would adversely affect employee conditions and did not provide sufficient justification for departure from the existing agreement.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties, including submissions on economic conditions, workforce skills, and the impact of the proposed changes on employees. The Commission found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the changes were necessary or in the best interests of the employees. It was also noted that the process for negotiating the changes did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. As a result, the application for variation was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of fair and transparent processes in collective bargaining and the need for any changes to genuinely benefit the workforce.

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