DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2021/4146)

MARQUES GROUP PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2021

Application for variation of the Marques Group Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

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

Marques Group 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 24 March 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Marques Group Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The Marques Group sought to vary certain provisions of their collective agreement for the period 2019-2022, arguing that changes in economic conditions necessitated adjustments to employee entitlements and working conditions. The CFMEU opposed these changes, asserting that the proposed variations were inconsistent with the spirit of the original agreement and would adversely affect the rights and conditions of the employees. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment and workplace relations matters in Australia.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the principles of good faith bargaining. The Marques Group argued that the economic downturn warranted changes to the collective agreement to ensure the company's viability. The CFMEU contended that any changes should be minimal and should not undermine the established rights and protections of the employees. The court had to determine whether the Marques Group's proposed variations were reasonable and whether they complied with the legal framework governing collective bargaining.

In its decision, the court examined the economic context provided by the Marques Group and considered the impact of the proposed changes on the employees. It found that while the economic conditions were challenging, the proposed variations went beyond what was necessary to ensure the company's viability. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the collective agreement and the principle of good faith in industrial relations. Ultimately, the court ruled that several of the proposed variations were unreasonable and did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The variations that were deemed reasonable were allowed, but the majority of the Marques Group's application was dismissed.

The court's final orders reflected its reasoning, allowing only those variations that were deemed necessary and reasonable, while rejecting the more extensive changes proposed by Marques Group. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the economic realities faced by employers with the protection of employees' rights and conditions under the collective agreement.

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