DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4648)

IRON BORN PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 19 APRIL 2021

Application for variation of the Iron Born Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

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

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] A variation was made to the title of the Agreement and throughout the Agreement which replaces the original Agreement title Iron Born Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:

Iron Born 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 April 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) brought an application to the Fair Work Commission seeking variation of the Iron Ore Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022. The dispute arose due to changes in the working conditions and employment practices of the company, which the union argued were not adequately covered by the existing agreement. The company, Iron Ore Pty Ltd, opposed the application, maintaining that the changes were within their rights under the existing agreement and did not warrant a variation.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes to the employment terms and conditions constituted a material change in the workplace that warranted a variation of the collective agreement, and whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to support its claim. The Commission had to consider the nature of the changes, the impact on employees, and the obligations of both parties under the existing agreement. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the process for seeking a variation had been correctly followed.

The Fair Work Commission found that the changes implemented by the company did indeed constitute a material shift in the workplace environment that was not adequately addressed by the existing collective agreement. The Commission emphasised the importance of the agreement reflecting the realities of the workplace and protecting the rights and interests of the employees. The evidence provided by the union was deemed sufficient to support their claim for variation. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, ordering the variation of the collective agreement to reflect the new working conditions and practices implemented by the company. The final orders required the company to negotiate in good faith with the union to revise the agreement within a specified timeframe.

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