| [2018] FWCA 3546 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.217 - Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/2408)
PRO CONCRETE PUMPING PTY LTD AND CFMMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018-2019
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 18 JUNE 2018 |
Application for variation of the Pro Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd and CFMMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019.
[1] On 5 June 2018, The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) applied to vary the Pro Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd and CFMMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019 (the Agreement) under s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] The CFMMEU seeks to vary clause 5.2 of Appendix 4 of the Agreement, which sets out the employer’s Impairment Policy. It currently reads:
“5.2 Employees shall:
(a) Co-operate reasonably with the employer in the implementation of this policy;
(b) If any employee reasonably believes that any person on the site may be a health and safety risk to themselves or others they should inform their employer and their relevant Preliminary Impairment Assessor (PIA) of this belief;
(c) Not possess, consume, or be under the influence of, alcohol or other drugs while
working;
(d) Ensure that they do not work, if they believe that they may be impaired;
(e) Consult their doctor or pharmacist about possible side effects of using prescribed or over-the-counter medication;
(f) Inform their employer, their Preliminary Impairment Assessor (PIA); and
(g) Delegate, if they have been made aware by their treating doctor or pharmacist of possible impairment as a side effect of medication, or if they feel impaired by medication.” (Emphasis added)
[3] In particular, the variation sought by the CFMMEU relates to cl 5.2 (f) and (g). The CFMMEU submitted that the words “; and (g) Delegate,” were the result of a clerical error and were not intended to be included in the Agreement by the parties covered by it. Clause 5.2 (f) requires an ‘and’ in place of the first comma after ‘employer’ to clarify its meaning. Further, it is submitted that read independently, (f) and (g) are not complete phrases and do not make sense.
[4] The proposed variation would remove the words ‘and’ and ‘Delegate’ and merge cl 5.2(f) and cl 5.2 (g) into a single clause.
[5] The employer consents to the proposed changes.
[6] Having regard to the consent position and the benefit of making cl 5.2 (f) a complete phrase, I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of section 217 of the Act have been met.
[7] In order to remove uncertainty in relation to the particular provisions of the Agreement, I order that the Agreement be varied as follows:
1. Delete clause 5.2(f) and clause 5.2(g) from Appendix 4.
2. Insert clause 5.2(f) into Appendix 4, which will now read:
“5.2(f) Inform their employer and their Preliminary Impairment Assessor (PIA) if they have been made aware by their treating doctor or pharmacist of possible impairment as a side effect of medication, or if they feel impaired by medication.”
[8] Accordingly, the application is granted and the variation, as sought, will operate from today, 18 June 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE428329 PR608191>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FWCA 3546
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 3546
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the FWC involved interpreting the terms of the collective agreement and determining whether the proposed changes would be in line with the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the amendments were necessary due to changes in the industry and economic conditions, which had negatively impacted the employees' working conditions. The company, on the other hand, contended that the changes proposed would be detrimental to its business operations and would lead to increased costs.
The FWC considered the arguments from both parties and examined the existing collective agreement. The Commission concluded that while the union had demonstrated that there had been changes in the industry and economic conditions, the proposed changes were not necessary to address these issues. The FWC found that the proposed changes would result in increased costs for the company without providing a commensurate benefit to the employees. The FWC also highlighted the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced collective agreement that takes into account the interests of both employers and employees.
As a result, the FWC rejected the union's application for variation of the collective agreement. The tribunal emphasised the need for collective agreements to be fair and reasonable, taking into consideration the interests of both parties. The decision serves as a reminder that changes to collective agreements must be justified and balanced, and that the FWC will carefully scrutinise proposed amendments to ensure they align with the objectives of the Fair Work Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.