DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2020/714)

FRONTLINE DEMOLITION PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) DEMOLITION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019-2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 27 MARCH 2020

Application for approval of the Frontline Demolition Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2019-2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Frontline Demolition Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Demolition 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 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 3 April 2020. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant, and Frontline Demolition Pty Ltd, the respondent, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving the demolition enterprise agreement between the parties for the period 2019-2020. The crux of the dispute lay in the terms and conditions outlined in the proposed agreement, specifically focusing on whether they met the statutory requirements and fairness standards set by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine if the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and if it complied with the relevant industrial laws.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement was a "better off overall test" (BOOT) compliant, whether it adhered to the "genuine agreement" requirement, and whether it provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The Commission also had to consider the procedural fairness in the negotiation process and whether the agreement was free from any unfair discrimination. The applicant argued that the agreement did not adequately protect employee interests, while the respondent contended that the terms were fair and reasonable, reflecting a balanced negotiation process.

After a thorough examination of the agreement, the Fair Work Commission found that while the majority of the terms were reasonable, certain provisions did not meet the BOOT criteria and were not genuinely agreed upon by both parties. The Commission noted that the negotiation process, while generally fair, had some procedural shortcomings. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the agreement did not fully comply with the statutory requirements and was not in the best interests of the employees. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the agreement, directing the parties to revisit the negotiation process to address the identified deficiencies.

The final orders of the Commission included a directive for the parties to re-negotiate the agreement, ensuring that it met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission emphasised the importance of achieving a genuine agreement that provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The re-negotiated agreement would need to be presented to the Commission for approval, with a focus on addressing the specific concerns raised during the initial review.

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