DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/5021)

RESOLUTION RIGGING SERVICES PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 14 MAY 2021

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

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Resolution Rigging Services 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 “Resolution Rigging Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022” has been replaced with the following:

Resolution Rigging 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 14 May 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved a dispute between Resolution Rigging Services Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The company sought a variation of the existing Collective Agreement 2019-2022, aiming to modify certain provisions regarding employee work arrangements and conditions. The union opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes would negatively impact employee rights and job security. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the application should be granted and, if so, what changes should be implemented.

The central legal issues the Commission had to address were whether the proposed variations were reasonable and whether they complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. The company argued that the changes were necessary to adapt to changing market conditions and ensure the business's viability. In contrast, the union contended that the proposed changes would lead to a deterioration of employee conditions and were not justified under the Act. The Commission had to balance the rights and interests of both parties, ensuring that any variations were fair and in line with the principles of the Act.

After considering the submissions from both parties and the broader implications for the workforce, the Commission concluded that some of the proposed variations were reasonable. The decision highlighted the need for the company to maintain a stable workforce and the importance of ensuring that employees were not unduly disadvantaged by the changes. The Commission made specific amendments to the Collective Agreement, focusing on aspects such as rostering and shift patterns, while rejecting proposals that would have led to significant reductions in employee entitlements. The outcome represented a compromise, aiming to accommodate the company's operational needs while protecting employee rights.

The final orders included modifications to certain work arrangements, with specific provisions on rostering, shift patterns, and procedural fairness. The Commission directed that the amended agreement would be binding on both parties and would come into effect on a specified date. Both parties were required to take steps to implement the changes and to engage in further discussions to ensure a smooth transition. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between business needs and employee rights in the context of collective bargaining.

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