DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/3450)

ROBUST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PTY LTD T/AS TITAN CRANES AND CFMEU CRANE SECTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT (ACT) 2017

Australian Capital Territory
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS	NEWCASTLE, 24 AUGUST 2018

Application for approval of the Robust Construction Services Pty Ltd T/As Titan Cranes and CFMEU Crane Sector Enterprise Agreement (ACT) 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Robust Construction Services Pty Ltd T/As Titan Cranes and CFMEU Crane Sector Enterprise Agreement (ACT) 2017 (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 31 August 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application for approval of the CFMEU Crane Sector Enterprise Agreement (ACT) 2017 by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The applicant, Robust Construction Services Pty Ltd trading as Titan Cranes, sought to have the agreement registered as a safety net agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement, which aimed to regulate employment terms and conditions for crane operators in the Australian Capital Territory, was opposed by the Fair Work Commission on the grounds that it did not comply with certain statutory requirements. The Commission's decision was subsequently challenged by the CFMEU in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Fair Work Commission had the authority to reject the agreement based on procedural grounds and whether the agreement could be approved in its current form. The CFMEU argued that the Commission had overstepped its authority by rejecting the agreement due to procedural flaws, rather than substantive issues. They also contended that the agreement should be approved as it met the statutory requirements for a safety net agreement. The applicant, on the other hand, maintained that the procedural issues were significant enough to invalidate the agreement and argued for a more stringent interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The court held that the Fair Work Commission had the authority to reject the agreement based on procedural grounds and that the procedural flaws were indeed significant. The court found that the Commission had not overstepped its authority in rejecting the agreement, as the procedural issues identified were substantial and could not be overlooked. The court further held that the agreement could not be approved in its current form, as it did not comply with the statutory requirements for a safety net agreement. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and a consideration of the procedural history of the agreement.

The court's decision was final, and the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The court did not order any further action or proceedings in relation to the agreement, as it found that the procedural issues were insurmountable and that the agreement could not be approved in its current form. The court's decision highlights the importance of procedural compliance in the context of enterprise agreements and the need for parties to ensure that all statutory requirements are met before seeking approval.

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