DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/2029)

BSF MOBILE CRANES PTY LTD AND CFMMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018-2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 28 MAY 2018

Application for approval of the BSF Mobile Cranes Pty Ltd and CFMMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the BSF Mobile Cranes Pty Ltd and CFMMEU Union Collective Agreement 2018-2019 (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] On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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) and based on the statutory declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 28 May 2018 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 June 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 January 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of the 2018-2019 Collective Agreement between BSF Mobile Cranes Pty Ltd and the union. The employer contested the application, asserting that certain clauses in the agreement were unreasonable and not in the best interests of the employees. The central dispute revolved around the validity of provisions related to employee entitlements and conditions, particularly those concerning overtime, shift patterns, and holiday pay. The case was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal standards for fairness and reasonableness.

The legal issues before the court included whether specific clauses within the agreement were unfair, and if they contravened the principles of the Fair Work Act. The court needed to examine whether the provisions in question were necessary and appropriate to address the particular circumstances of the industry and the relationship between the employer and the union. The central contention was whether these provisions, particularly those concerning employee entitlements and conditions, were reasonable in the context of the industry standards and the collective bargaining process.

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement were indeed unreasonable and not in the best interests of the employees. The court held that the contested clauses, particularly those concerning overtime, shift patterns, and holiday pay, were not justified under the circumstances presented. The court emphasised the need for collective agreements to be fair and balanced, reflecting the needs of both the employer and the employees. As a result, the application for approval of the collective agreement was dismissed, and the agreement was not approved. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal standards in collective bargaining processes to ensure fairness and protect the interests of employees.

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