Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2022] FWCA 1642

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2022/1411)

Structural Reinforcements Pty Ltd and CFMEU UnionCollective Agreement 2020–2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 20 MAY 2022

Application for approval of the Structural Reinforcements Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020–2022

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Structural Reinforcements Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2020–2022 (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.

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 27 May 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for approval of a collective agreement between Structural Reinforcements Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for the years 2020 to 2022. The Union sought to have the agreement recognised as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The company contested the application, arguing that certain provisions of the agreement were not compliant with the Act.

The central legal issues before the Commission related to the compliance of specific clauses within the agreement. The company argued that certain provisions, including those related to pay rates, conditions of employment, and the imposition of union fees, were not in accordance with the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The Union contended that the provisions were lawful and necessary to ensure fair and equitable treatment of its members.

The Commission, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found that several clauses within the agreement did not comply with the Fair Work Act. These included provisions that established pay rates and conditions that exceeded the maximum permissible limits set out in the Act, as well as clauses that imposed union fees on non-union members. The Commission noted that while the Union had a legitimate interest in advocating for its members, it was also obligated to ensure that its actions did not contravene the provisions of the Act. The Commission ultimately rejected the application for approval, stating that the agreement could not be registered in its current form. The company and the Union were directed to negotiate a revised agreement that complied with the statutory requirements.

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