DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2020/1169)

INVICTA SITE SERVICES PTY LTD AND CFMEU (WA) ELIZABETH QUAY AND CAPITAL SQUARE) GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN	MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2020

Application for variation of the Invicta Site Services Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) (1 The Esplanade Project, Elizabeth Quay & Capital Square) Greenfields Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Invicta Site Services Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) (1 The Esplanade Project, Elizabeth Quay & Capital Square) Greenfields Agreement 2019 (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] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 12 May 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application by Invicta Site Services Pty Ltd, a construction company, and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) in Western Australia. The application sought a variation of the Greenfields Agreement 2019, which governs the terms of employment for workers on specific projects, including the Esplanade Project, Elizabeth Quay, and Capital Square. The dispute arose when Invicta sought changes to the agreement, prompting the CFMEU to contest these variations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed changes to the Greenfields Agreement were justified under the relevant industrial laws and whether the process followed to seek these changes was lawful and procedurally correct. The court had to consider whether the application complied with the necessary provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the changes proposed would unduly prejudice the rights of the employees under the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the application was made in good faith and whether the parties had followed the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.

The court carefully examined the application and the submissions from both parties. It determined that the changes proposed by Invicta did not unduly prejudice the rights of the employees and were in line with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court found that the application was made in good faith and that the process followed was procedurally sound. Consequently, the court granted the variation of the Greenfields Agreement, allowing the changes to proceed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the variation of the Greenfields Agreement, as sought by Invicta. The changes, which included modifications to the working conditions and terms of employment, were approved. The court's decision was based on the finding that the application was justified and did not result in any undue prejudice to the employees. This outcome ensured that the parties could proceed with the necessary adjustments to the agreement, facilitating the continuation of the projects involved.

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