DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2019/766)

LACK GROUP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD AND CFMEU (WA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 12 JUNE 2019

Application for variation of the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020 (the Agreement). The application was made by 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 June 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicants, Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd, sought to vary the terms of their enterprise agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (WA) to reduce the number of casual employees. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes were consistent with the principles of the Fair Work Act and whether they served the broader interests of fairness and good faith bargaining.

The Commission examined whether the proposed changes were necessary to ensure the economic sustainability of Lack Group Construction. The applicants argued that the reduction in casual employment was essential to address financial pressures due to industry downturns and increased operational costs. The Union contended that the proposed changes would detrimentally affect the job security and working conditions of casual employees. The Commission found that the applicants had demonstrated a genuine need for the changes, taking into account the economic context and the necessity to maintain the business's viability. The Commission also considered the principle of good faith bargaining and concluded that the proposed changes were reasonable and in line with the spirit of the Act.

After careful consideration, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicants, allowing the variation of the enterprise agreement. The decision was based on the applicants' demonstrated need for economic sustainability and the absence of any evidence suggesting that the changes would unfairly disadvantage the employees or contravene the principles of good faith bargaining. The Commission's decision was informed by a balanced assessment of the economic realities faced by the company and the need for flexibility in employment arrangements to ensure long-term viability.

The final order permitted the applicants to implement the changes to the enterprise agreement as proposed, thereby reducing the number of casual employees while maintaining compliance with the Fair Work Act.

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