DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2019/541)

GRIFFITHS CRANES PTY LTD T-AS BOTANY CRANES & FORKLIFT SERVICES / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON	MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2019

Application for approval of the Griffiths Cranes Pty Ltd t-as Botany Cranes & Forklift Services / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Griffiths Cranes Pty Ltd t-as Botany Cranes & Forklift Services / CFMEU Collective Agreement 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 21 March 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Griffiths Cranes Pty Ltd, trading as Botany Cranes & Forklift Services. The union sought approval of the 2019 Collective Agreement between the parties. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was in the public interest and did not undermine the right of employees to choose whether or not to be represented by a union.

The Commission examined the provisions of the agreement, focusing on aspects such as pay rates, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The union argued that the agreement was fair and balanced, and in the public interest as it provided for improved safety standards and reasonable working hours. The company, on the other hand, contended that certain provisions were overly restrictive and could hinder operational efficiency. The Commission found that while some clauses had potential drawbacks, the overall agreement was fair and did not undermine the right of employees to be represented by a union. It concluded that the benefits of the agreement, particularly in terms of safety and working conditions, outweighed any potential detriments.

Following its analysis, the Commission approved the agreement. It found that the agreement was in the public interest and did not undermine the right of employees to choose whether or not to be represented by a union. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of employers and employees while ensuring that any agreement contributes positively to the public interest. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the agreement's provisions and their implications for all parties involved.

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