| [2018] FWCA 3545 |
| 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
(AG2018/2401)
CONSTRUCTION CLEANING GROUP (QLD) PTY LTD T/AS SEQ CONSTRUCTION CLEANING AND CFMMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018-2019
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 18 JUNE 2018 |
Application for variation of the Construction Cleaning Group (QLD) Pty Ltd T/As SEQ Construction Cleaning 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 Construction Cleaning Group (QLD) Pty Ltd T/As SEQ Construction Cleaning 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
<AE428412 PR608190>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FWCA 3545
- Case
- [2018] FWCA 3545
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission were primarily concerned with the interpretation of specific clauses in the collective agreement and the applicability of certain industrial instruments. The CFMEU argued that certain provisions were ambiguous and needed clarification, while the employer contested these interpretations, asserting that the existing terms were clear and should be upheld. The Commission had to determine whether the union's interpretation of the agreement was reasonable and whether any variation was warranted to ensure fair and just terms for both parties.
The Fair Work Commission, after a thorough review of the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that certain clauses within the collective agreement were indeed ambiguous. The Commission found that these ambiguities warranted clarification to prevent future disputes and ensure that the agreement operated as intended by the parties. Consequently, the Commission granted the union's application for variation, clarifying specific provisions to address the identified ambiguities. This decision aimed to provide a fair and just resolution for both the union and the employer, ensuring that the agreement served its intended purpose without room for misinterpretation.
The final orders included specific amendments to the collective agreement, providing clear definitions and clarifications to the contested clauses. These amendments were designed to remove any ambiguity and ensure that both the union and the employer could operate under a mutually agreed-upon understanding of their rights and obligations.
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.