DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - Manufacturing Division
(AG2021/4732)

PURE CONTRACTING PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2019-2022

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 6 MAY 2021

Application for variation of the Pure Contracting Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Pure Contracting Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022 (Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - Manufacturing Division pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement in accordance with Annexure A to this decision.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the FW Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met including, without limitation, that the Agreement as varied continues to pass the better off overall test.

[4] A variation was made to the title of the Agreement with the consequence that, throughout the Agreement, the original Agreement title “Pure Contracting Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022” has been replaced with the following:

Pure Contracting Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2019-2022

[5] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[6] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 6 May 2021.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Pure Contracting Pty Ltd for a variation of the existing collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – Manufacturing Division. The primary dispute centred around changes proposed by Pure Contracting Pty Ltd which the union contested, arguing that they were detrimental to the employees' conditions. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed variations were justifiable under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission were multifaceted. Central to the dispute was the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to the good faith bargaining obligations of both parties. The Commission needed to assess whether the variations proposed by Pure Contracting Pty Ltd were reasonable and whether the union had engaged in good faith negotiations. Another significant issue was whether the proposed changes adversely affected the employees’ conditions, and if so, whether there were sufficient grounds to override the existing agreement.

In rendering its decision, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties. It evaluated the nature of the proposed variations and their potential impact on employees' conditions. The Commission noted that Pure Contracting Pty Ltd had demonstrated a need for flexibility in its operations, which justified some of the proposed changes. However, the union's argument that the changes would undermine employees' conditions and did not result from genuine negotiations was also taken into account. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that while some of the proposed changes were reasonable, others were not justified. The Commission ordered specific variations to the collective agreement, reflecting a balance between the need for business flexibility and the protection of employees' rights.

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