DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/693)

STILCON SITE SERVICES PTY LTD T/AS MELBOURNE SITE SERVICES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) RIGGER/STEEL ERECTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 20 APRIL 2018

Application for variation of the Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd T/As Melbourne Site Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd T/As Melbourne Site Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector 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 20 April 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd trading as Melbourne Site Services Pty Ltd, sought a variation of the Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The application was made in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over workplace relations matters in Australia. The primary dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment for riggers and steel erectors, with the applicant seeking changes to various aspects of the agreement, including pay rates, working hours, and job classifications.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed changes were necessary for the applicant to remain competitive and viable, and whether the changes would result in a detriment to the employees covered by the agreement. The CFMEU argued that the proposed changes would result in reduced pay and conditions for the employees, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine need for the changes. The applicant, on the other hand, contended that the changes were necessary to ensure its financial sustainability and competitiveness in the market.

In its decision, the Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine need for the proposed changes, and that the changes would result in a detriment to the employees. The Commission noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that the changes were necessary for its financial viability, and that the proposed changes would result in reduced pay and conditions for the employees. The Commission also found that the applicant had not engaged in good faith bargaining with the CFMEU, and that the application should be dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for variation of the enterprise agreement, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine need for the proposed changes and that the changes would result in a detriment to the employees. The Commission ordered that the existing enterprise agreement remain in force, and that the parties continue to engage in good faith bargaining to reach a new agreement.

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