DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/3876)

CASC CONTRACTING PTY LTD AND CFMEU (WA) SUBCONTRACTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2020

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL	MELBOURNE, 19 SEPTEMBER 2018

Application for variation of the CASC Contracting Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) Subcontractor Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the CASC Contracting Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) Subcontractor 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 several 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] The varied agreement lodged contained a number of errors at clause 2, clause 36.6(h), clause 50.2 and clause 52.1. On 18 September 2018, the Applicant filed an amended version of the varied agreement pursuant to s.586 of the Act. I am satisfied that the correction should be made and that it is appropriate to do so pursuant to s.586 of the Act.

[6] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 19 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case involving the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant sought a variation of the CASC Contracting Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) Subcontractor Enterprise Agreement 2016-2020. The dispute centred around the terms of the enterprise agreement, which governs the employment conditions of subcontractors within specified industries. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed variation to the enterprise agreement was in the interests of the employees and complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that changes were necessary to adapt to new industry standards and to ensure fair treatment of employees. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the proposed changes were not in the best interests of the employees and did not meet the statutory criteria for variation.

The Fair Work Commission carefully considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court focused on whether the variation would promote harmonious, productive and equitable workplace relations and whether it would benefit the employees. After thorough analysis, the Commission found that the proposed changes did not meet the statutory criteria for variation and were not in the interests of the employees. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented and the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the variation was necessary or beneficial to the employees, and thus, the application was denied. The existing enterprise agreement remained in effect, and no changes were implemented.

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