DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/1226)

BAYSIDE PAVING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC	MELBOURNE, 12 APRIL 2018

Application for approval of the Bayside Paving Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Bayside Paving Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 (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] 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 12 April 2018 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 19 April 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) sought approval for an enterprise agreement with Bayside Paving Pty Ltd under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal with specific jurisdiction to make binding decisions in matters concerning workplace relations. The core issue was whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for being "better off overall" for the employees covered by the agreement.

The Commission considered whether the proposed agreement provided a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions for the employees. This involved examining the various aspects of the agreement, including wages, hours of work, leave entitlements, and other employment terms. The Commission had to determine if the agreement was likely to result in a better overall position for the employees than what they would have under the applicable awards and general laws. The analysis also required considering the views and interests of both the union and the employer.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not satisfy the "better off overall" test. The Commission determined that the proposed changes to the employees' conditions did not provide them with a sufficiently improved overall position. The Commission noted that the changes, while beneficial in some respects, were outweighed by the negative impacts in other areas. Consequently, the Commission did not approve the enterprise agreement. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that employees are not disadvantaged by the terms of an enterprise 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