DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - Manufacturing Division
(AG2019/3986)

MOORABBIN CABINETS PTY LTD AND CFMEU – MANUFACTURING DIVISION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2019-2021

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for approval of the Moorabbin Cabinets Pty Ltd and CFMEU - Manufacturing Division Enterprise Agreement 2019-2021.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Moorabbin Cabinets Pty Ltd and CFMEU - Manufacturing Division Enterprise Agreement 2019-2021 (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 - Manufacturing Division. 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.

[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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 27 November 2019. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – Manufacturing Division sought approval for the Moorabbin Cabinets Pty Ltd and CFMEU – Manufacturing Division Enterprise Agreement 2019-2021. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal before which this matter was heard, with the application brought pursuant to section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer contested the application on the basis that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees, primarily because it did not provide sufficient protections for employees working on casual terms.

The legal issues the court needed to decide centred on whether the agreement was fair and appropriate, taking into account the potential impact on employees' terms and conditions. The Commission needed to assess whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, including the requirement that the agreement must not be less favourable than the applicable award or the national system. The employer argued that the agreement did not adequately protect casual employees and that it failed to provide adequate safeguards for those employees. The union, on the other hand, argued that the agreement provided reasonable protections and that it was in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission examined the agreement and found that, while it did not offer the highest level of protection, it was fair and appropriate overall. The Commission noted that casual employees were still entitled to the national minimum entitlements and that the agreement provided for a pathway to permanency, which was a reasonable safeguard. The Commission also found that the agreement was not less favourable than the applicable award or the national system. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, determining that it was in the best interests of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Moorabbin Cabinets Pty Ltd and CFMEU – Manufacturing Division Enterprise Agreement 2019-2021, finding it to be fair and appropriate overall. The Commission determined that the agreement was not less favourable than the applicable award or the national system and provided reasonable protections for casual employees. The employer's concerns were alleviated by the agreement's provision of a pathway to permanency and the continued entitlement of casual employees to the national minimum entitlements. The union's arguments that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees were upheld by the Commission.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - Manufacturing Division

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established