DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2020/1941)

DELTA PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2020

Application for approval of the Delta Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Delta Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (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 28 July 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union brought an application to the Fair Work Commission to approve a collective agreement between Delta Pty Ltd and the union. The agreement was for the period 2019-2022. The application was contested by Delta Pty Ltd. The primary legal issue for the Commission was whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. In particular, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement contained provisions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of employees' health and safety and whether the agreement complied with the "better off overall test".

The Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that went beyond what was reasonably necessary for the protection of employees' health and safety. These provisions were not necessary for the purposes of the agreement and therefore did not meet the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission also found that the agreement did not meet the better off overall test, as it did not provide employees with a sufficient level of protection in terms of wages and conditions. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees and could not be approved.

Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the application for approval of the agreement. The Commission found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act and did not provide employees with a sufficient level of protection. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that collective agreements are in the best interests of employees and comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

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