DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4172)

FTC MANAGEMENT AUST PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 25 MARCH 2021

Application for variation of the FTC Management Aust Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

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

FTC Management Aust 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 25 March 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by FTC Management Australia Pty Ltd to vary the Collective Agreement between the company and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for the period 2019 to 2022. The primary dispute centred on the company's desire to implement changes in employee working conditions, specifically relating to shift patterns and rostering practices, which the union contested as detrimental to employee welfare and job security. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed changes were justified under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if they met the criteria for an exceptional circumstance.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed changes constituted a genuine attempt to achieve a better work-life balance for employees, as claimed by the company, or if they were a pretext for reducing labour costs and increasing management control over employee schedules. The union argued that the changes would lead to increased stress and reduced job satisfaction among employees, contrary to the company's claims of improved work conditions. The Commission needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the changes would have a significant impact on the fairness and effectiveness of the workplace relations.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed changes did not sufficiently demonstrate a genuine attempt to improve work-life balance for employees, as the company had not provided adequate evidence to support its claims. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining fair and equitable working conditions, particularly in light of the significant changes in the working environment brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes proposed by the company were deemed to be more aligned with reducing operational costs and increasing managerial flexibility, rather than enhancing employee welfare. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed, and the existing Collective Agreement remained in effect.

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