Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

[2023] FWCA 201

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2022/5268)

RANGEDALE QLD PTY LTD GOLD COAST LIGHT RAIL STAGE 3 PROJECT AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 20 JANUARY 2023

Application for approval of the Rangedale Qld Pty Ltd Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3 Project Agreement

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Rangedale Qld Pty Ltd Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3 Project Agreement (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

The CFMMEU lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration supporting approval of the Agreement and giving notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the CFMMEU.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union applied for approval of the Rangedale Qld Pty Ltd Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3 Project Agreement. The dispute arose as Rangedale sought to engage non-union labour under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union objected to the terms of the proposed agreement, arguing that it did not comply with the statutory requirements for an enterprise agreement.

The court was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act for approval. This included assessing if the agreement provided for the resolution of disputes, the payment of employees and the establishment of a bargaining council. The court also needed to consider if the agreement was in the best interests of the employees covered by it.

The court found that the proposed agreement did not adequately address the resolution of disputes, as it failed to provide a mechanism for the resolution of future disputes that might arise. The court further held that while the agreement included provisions for the payment of employees, it did not sufficiently ensure that employees would be paid the applicable award rates and conditions. Consequently, the court refused to approve the agreement. The court's decision was based on the need for compliance with statutory requirements and the protection of employees' rights under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established