DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2019/3773)

PRO CONCRETE GROUP PTY LIMITED (QUEENS WHARF PROJECT) UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	SYDNEY, 15 OCTOBER 2019

Application for approval of the Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited (Queens Wharf Project) Union Collective Agreement 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited (Queens Wharf Project) Union Collective Agreement 2018 (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 22 October 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2022.

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 Pro Concrete Group Pty Limited (Queens Wharf Project) Union Collective Agreement 2018. The company opposed the approval on several grounds, including that the agreement failed to adequately address issues such as minimum working hours, shift patterns, and the incorporation of certain provisions from other agreements. The company argued that these aspects were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act and its principles.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement adequately covered minimum working hours and shift patterns, and if it correctly incorporated provisions from other agreements. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was consistent with the Fair Work Act and if it appropriately balanced the interests of both the employer and employees.

The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address minimum working hours and shift patterns, which were critical for ensuring fairness and consistency in employment conditions. Additionally, the incorporation of provisions from other agreements was deemed problematic, as it led to confusion and potential inconsistencies. The Commission held that the agreement did not meet the standards required under the Fair Work Act, and therefore, it could not be approved. The Commission rejected the application for approval, highlighting the need for clearer and more comprehensive terms in future agreements.

No further orders were made, as the rejection of the application for approval was the primary outcome of the case.

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