DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/1565)

AP & MJ SUTAS PTY LTD T/AS SUTAS PAINTING AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 25 MAY 2018

Application for variation of the AP & MJ Sutas Pty Ltd T/As Sutas Painting and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the AP & MJ Sutas Pty Ltd T/As Sutas Painting and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 (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 various 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] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 25 May 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant sought a variation to the existing enterprise agreement between AP & MJ Sutas Pty Ltd T/As Sutas Painting and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) for the period 2016-2018. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the dispute centred on the need for amendments to certain clauses within the enterprise agreement, particularly those concerning pay rates, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The union argued that the changes were necessary to reflect changes in the industry and to ensure fair compensation and working conditions for employees.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the existing agreement, assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed changes, and determining whether the changes were in line with the overarching principles of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to weigh the need for flexibility and adaptability in the agreement against the necessity to maintain stability and predictability for the workforce. Additionally, it needed to consider whether the proposed changes would unduly disadvantage any party and whether they were a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace issue.

In its decision, the Commission thoroughly examined the submissions from both parties and the broader context of the industry. It found that the proposed changes were reasonable and necessary to address current challenges and to ensure fairness and equity in the workplace. The Commission concluded that the changes would not unduly disadvantage either party and were in line with the principles of the Fair Work Act. As such, the application for variation was approved with the specified amendments incorporated into the enterprise agreement.

The final orders of the Commission mandated that the enterprise agreement be varied as per the approved changes, which included adjustments to pay rates, modifications to certain working conditions, and updates to the dispute resolution processes. The changes were to be effective immediately upon the issuance of the decision, ensuring that both parties would be bound by the new terms from that point forward.

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