DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2020/1281)

SGB FACADES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ALUMINIUM & GLASS WORKERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019 - 2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 20 MAY 2020

Application for approval of the SGB FACADES PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Aluminium & Glass Workers Enterprise Agreement 2019 - 2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SGB FACADES PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Aluminium & Glass Workers Enterprise Agreement 2019 - 2020 (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 27 May 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 April 2020.

COMMISSIONER

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 sought approval of the SGB FACADES PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Aluminium & Glass Workers Enterprise Agreement 2019 - 2020. The parties had been engaged in enterprise bargaining negotiations since 2018 and reached an agreement in principle in October 2019. The union sought to have the agreement approved as a single, unified enterprise agreement, despite the fact that it covered workers in different states. The employer argued that the agreement should not be approved as a single enterprise agreement and that the union had failed to provide evidence of a single bargaining unit.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement could be approved as a single, unified enterprise agreement and whether the union had demonstrated the existence of a single bargaining unit. The Commission noted that the agreement covered workers in multiple states and that there was no evidence of a single bargaining unit. However, the Commission found that the agreement could still be approved as a single, unified enterprise agreement if it was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and approved it as a single, unified enterprise agreement.

The Commission found that the employer had failed to demonstrate that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees and that the union had not been required to provide evidence of a single bargaining unit. The Commission approved the agreement as a single, unified enterprise agreement and ordered that it be registered with the Fair Work Commission.

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