DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4310)

FIRST CHOICE HIRE PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 29 MARCH 2021

Application for variation of the First Choice Hire Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

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

First Choice Hire 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 29 March 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case before the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) sought a variation of the Collective Agreement between First Choice Hire Pty Ltd and the CFMEU for the years 2019 to 2022. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the existing agreement, specifically addressing certain terms that the union claimed were not being adhered to by the employer. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the conditions outlined in the agreement were being complied with and whether any modifications were warranted.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether there was a breach of the collective agreement by the employer and, if so, what remedies were appropriate. The union argued that there were significant non-compliances with the terms of the agreement, including issues related to employee entitlements, work hours, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the terms were being fairly applied and that any perceived issues were either misinterpretations or were beyond the scope of the agreement. The Commission had to carefully weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the claims and the necessity for any variations.

The Commission, after considering the submissions and evidence from both parties, found that there were indeed areas where the employer had not fully complied with the terms of the agreement. The union's claims regarding certain entitlements and dispute resolution processes were substantiated, leading the Commission to conclude that variations were necessary to ensure the agreement was being properly implemented. The Commission outlined specific changes to the agreement, including clarifications and additional protections for the employees. The outcome was a modified collective agreement that more accurately reflected the intended terms and conditions of employment between the parties.

The final orders included detailed provisions for the revised agreement, which addressed the non-compliance issues raised by the union. The Commission mandated that the employer adhere to the new terms, with a clear outline of the changes and an effective date for implementation. This decision not only resolved the immediate dispute but also set a precedent for future collective bargaining processes in similar contexts.

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