DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2020/2928)

CASA ENGINEERING (BRISBANE) PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018-2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 12 OCTOBER 2020

Application for approval of the Casa Engineering (Brisbane) Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Casa Engineering (Brisbane) Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 October 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 January 2021.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) made an application for approval of the Casa Engineering (Brisbane) Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019. The company, Casa Engineering, contested the application, asserting that certain provisions in the agreement were not in line with the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by Deputy President A.E. Douglas.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and conformity of the collective agreement's provisions with the Fair Work Act. The company argued that specific clauses regarding shift patterns, penalty rates, and leave provisions were not consistent with the provisions of the Act. The union contended that these clauses were necessary to safeguard the rights and conditions of its members. The court had to determine whether the contested clauses complied with the requirements of the Act and, if not, whether any provisions could be modified to meet legislative standards.

The Deputy President found that certain provisions of the agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the shift patterns and penalty rates. However, it was determined that the leave provisions were consistent with the Act. The court exercised its power under section 234 of the Act to modify the non-compliant clauses. The modified agreement was then approved by the Deputy President, ensuring that it met the legislative requirements while also addressing the interests of both the union and the company. The court's decision resulted in the approval of the collective agreement, subject to the modifications made to the shift patterns and penalty rates.

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