DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2019/2810)

COLLECTIVE CRANE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU MOBILE CRANE HIRING INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 15 AUGUST 2019

Application for approval of the Collective Crane Employment Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Mobile Crane Hiring Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Collective Crane Employment Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Mobile Crane Hiring Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019 (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 August 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for approval of the Collective Crane Employment Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Mobile Crane Hiring Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval, particularly focusing on the procedural fairness and the directness of the agreement. The decision was handed down by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the agreement was made in accordance with procedural fairness and whether the agreement was direct between the parties involved. The court needed to consider the specific procedural steps taken during the negotiation and drafting of the agreement, as well as the relationship between the parties and the terms of the agreement itself. The court also needed to determine if the agreement was direct and did not merely replicate or incorporate terms from other agreements.

In its reasoning, the Full Bench found that there were significant procedural flaws in the negotiation process, which rendered the agreement invalid. The court emphasised that the negotiation process was not conducted in a manner that ensured all parties had an opportunity to be heard and to contribute to the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, the court found that the agreement was not direct as it incorporated terms from another agreement without proper justification. Given these findings, the Full Bench concluded that the application for approval should be dismissed.

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for approval of the agreement. The court ordered that the agreement be rejected due to the procedural flaws identified and the lack of directness. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to proper negotiation processes and ensuring that enterprise agreements are directly negotiated and approved.

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