DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4633)

CITY STEEL PTY. LTD./ CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2021

Application for variation of the City Steel Pty. Ltd./ CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the City Steel 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 City Steel Pty. Ltd./ CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the following:

City Steel 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 15 April 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, City Steel Pty. Ltd. sought to vary the Collective Agreement 2019-2022 with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal in Australia responsible for resolving workplace disputes. City Steel sought to amend certain provisions of the agreement, including those related to employee working hours, rosters, and shift patterns. The union contested these changes, arguing they would adversely affect employee welfare and job security.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve centred on the scope of the employer's rights to propose changes to a collective agreement and the union's rights to negotiate in good faith. The court examined the balance between an employer's legitimate business needs and the rights of employees as protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court assessed whether the proposed changes were reasonable and whether the employer had demonstrated good faith in the negotiation process. Additionally, the court considered the potential impact of the changes on employees' working conditions and job security.

The Fair Work Commission found that while City Steel had legitimate business reasons for proposing the changes, the union had not acted unreasonably in its opposition. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a constructive dialogue between employers and unions. It concluded that the employer had not adequately demonstrated good faith in the negotiation process, and the proposed changes were not reasonable given the potential negative impact on employee welfare. As a result, the application for variation was dismissed. The court's decision reinforced the importance of fair and transparent negotiations in the workplace, upholding the rights of employees and the principles 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