DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4852)

FINE TOUCH PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 6 MAY 2021

Application for variation of the Fine Touch Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

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

Fine Touch 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 6 May 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Fine Touch Pty Ltd for a variation to the collective agreement between the company and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The primary focus of the dispute was the proposed changes to the agreement's terms concerning employee leave, work hours, and the introduction of new technology in the workplace. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed changes were justified and in line with the principles of good faith bargaining and fairness.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly those concerning good faith bargaining and the criteria for approving variations to a collective agreement. The Commission had to assess whether the applicant had acted in good faith, whether the proposed changes were necessary and reasonable, and if they aligned with the broader objectives of the Act, such as promoting cooperative relationships between employers and employees.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the changes were necessary or reasonable. The Commission found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the need for the proposed changes, and that the changes would have a detrimental impact on the employees' working conditions. The Commission also highlighted that the applicant had not engaged in good faith bargaining, as required by the Act. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

In light of the Commission's findings, the parties were directed to continue their discussions in good faith to reach an agreement that would be beneficial to both employees and the employer. The Commission emphasised the importance of cooperative and constructive negotiations in reaching a resolution that would promote harmonious workplace relations.

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