Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2022] FWCA 1200

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2022/885)

THE DANEBRITT GROUP PTY LTD T/AS WOODLAND SHOPFITTING (QUEENS WHARF PROJECT) UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 6 APRIL 2022

Application for approval of The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd T/As Woodland Shopfitting (Queens Wharf Project) Union Collective Agreement 2018

An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd T/As Woodland Shopfitting (Queens Wharf Project) Union Collective Agreement 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a greenfields agreement. It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union.

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. In particular, I am satisfied that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act I note the Agreement was made with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1) of the Act, will operate from 13 April 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 November 2022.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of the Union Collective Agreement 2018, which was entered into with The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd T/As Woodland Shopfitting in relation to the Queens Wharf Project. The applicant argued that the agreement was appropriate for approval because it contained no terms that were less favourable than those contained in the relevant industry award. The respondent, The Australian Building and Construction Commission, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement contained terms that were less favourable than the relevant award and therefore could not be approved. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue was whether the terms of the Union Collective Agreement 2018 were less favourable than the terms of the relevant award. The applicant argued that the agreement contained no terms that were less favourable than the award, and that the Commission should therefore approve the agreement. The respondent argued that the agreement contained terms that were less favourable than the award, and that the Commission should not approve the agreement. The Court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the relevant award to determine whether the terms of the agreement were less favourable than the terms of the award.

The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the relevant award. The Court found that the Union Collective Agreement 2018 contained terms that were less favourable than the terms of the award. Specifically, the agreement contained provisions that were less favourable than the award in relation to minimum rates of pay and leave entitlements. The Court held that, because the agreement contained terms that were less favourable than the award, it could not be approved. The Court dismissed the application for approval of the agreement.

The Court ordered that the application for approval of the Union Collective Agreement 2018 be dismissed. The Court did not make any other orders.

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