DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2019/3256)

CLARK HOIST HIRE PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) RIGGER/STEEL ERECTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 -2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for approval of the CLARK HOIST HIRE PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016 -2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CLARK HOIST HIRE PTY LTD and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016 -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 18 September 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 September 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Clark Hoist Hire Pty Ltd, sought approval of an enterprise agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for its employees who are riggers and steel erectors in Victoria. The Fair Work Commission heard the application, addressing the compliance of the agreement with the Fair Work Act. The central legal issue was whether the agreement met the requirements of section 232 of the Act, which mandates that an enterprise agreement must not have the effect of disadvantaging employees in terms of pay and conditions of employment.

The Commission examined the terms of the agreement to ensure they did not unjustifiably diminish the rights of the employees. It evaluated whether the provisions relating to pay rates, hours of work, leave entitlements, and other conditions of employment were fair and reasonable. The Commission also considered submissions from both parties regarding the necessity and reasonableness of certain clauses. Ultimately, the Commission found that the agreement did not disadvantage employees, as it provided for fair compensation and maintained essential protections. It concluded that the agreement was consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act and approved it.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was grounded in the statutory requirement that enterprise agreements should promote harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations while ensuring fair treatment of employees. By carefully assessing the terms of the agreement, the Commission determined that the proposed agreement achieved these goals without unfairly disadvantaging the employees. The approval of the agreement was thus upheld, allowing it to come into effect as intended.

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