Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2022] FWCA 2595

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2022/3080)

Central West Crane Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2022-2025

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 3 AUGUST 2022

Application for approval of the Central West Crane Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2022-2025

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Central West Crane Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2022-2025 (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. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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.

Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 August 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Central West Crane Services Pty Ltd (the company) for the approval of a proposed collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the union). The union had submitted the agreement for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as the agreement was not able to be resolved through bargaining between the parties. The Fair Work Commission had previously found that the agreement was appropriate for approval. The company contested the union's application, arguing that the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest, including provisions that required the company to pay for union officials' time and expenses in the event of industrial action.

The legal issue before the court was whether the agreement was appropriate for approval. The court had to consider whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it was contrary to the public interest. The court also had to consider whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The company argued that certain provisions of the agreement were contrary to the public interest, including provisions that required the company to pay for union officials' time and expenses in the event of industrial action.

The court found that the agreement was appropriate for approval. The court found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as it provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. The court also found that the agreement was not contrary to the public interest, despite the company's concerns about certain provisions. The court found that the provisions in question were not unreasonable or oppressive, and that they did not unduly burden the company. The court found that the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and that the agreement was therefore appropriate for approval.

The court approved the proposed collective agreement between the company and the union. The court found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, and that it was not contrary to the public interest. The court also found that the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and that it was therefore appropriate for approval. The court noted that the agreement contained provisions that were not ideal from the company's perspective, but that these provisions were not unreasonable or oppressive, and did not unduly burden the company. The court approved the agreement, and directed that it be registered with the Fair Work Commission.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established