DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5086)

AUSTRALASIAN TECHNICAL SERVICES PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 19 MAY 2021

Application for variation of the Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (Agreement). The application was made by the 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 “Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022” has been replaced with the following:

Australasian Technical Services 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 19 May 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involves an application for variation of the Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd (ATS) and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Collective Agreement 2019-2022. The applicant, ATS, sought to alter specific terms of the agreement to accommodate changes in business operations and the economic climate, which they claimed were necessary to ensure the company's viability. The CFMEU opposed the application, asserting that the changes proposed by ATS would adversely affect the employees' conditions and job security.

The legal issues central to the case were whether the proposed variations to the collective agreement were reasonable and justifiable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to assess whether ATS had demonstrated that the changes were necessary for the business to remain viable and whether the modifications were fair and reasonable in the context of the overall agreement. It was also necessary to consider the impact of the proposed changes on the employees and whether any detriments could be justified by the need for the business to adapt to new circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission, after evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, determined that the proposed changes were not reasonable or justifiable. The court found that while ATS had shown some need for change due to economic pressures, the proposed alterations went beyond what was necessary and would unfairly disadvantage the employees. The Commission held that the changes sought by ATS did not meet the criteria for variation under the Fair Work Act, as they were not in the interests of achieving a fair and balanced outcome for all parties involved. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission upheld the existing terms of the ATS and CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022, rejecting the application for variation submitted by ATS. The Commission ruled that the proposed changes were not reasonable or justifiable, as they would have significantly impacted employees' conditions without providing sufficient justification. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining fair and balanced outcomes in collective bargaining agreements, particularly when considering the interests of both employers and employees.

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