DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/5548)

CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 12 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Civil Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Civil Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018 (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, Mining and Energy Union. 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, 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 19 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission concerns the approval of the Enterprise Agreement between Civil Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division) for the years 2016 to 2018. The applicant union, the CFMEU, sought approval of the agreement under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant employer, Civil Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd, opposed the application on the basis that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 230 of the Act. The dispute centred on whether the agreement had been appropriately made in accordance with the legislative criteria for its approval.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Enterprise Agreement fulfilled the conditions set out in section 230 of the Fair Work Act. This required the Commission to consider whether the agreement had been made in good faith, whether it contained the necessary provisions for minimum entitlements, and whether it had been appropriately certified by the union. The Commission also needed to determine whether the agreement had been made without coercion, duress or improper influence, and whether it had been appropriately negotiated. Furthermore, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement provided for the proper operation of the enterprise, including consideration of its impact on productivity and efficiency.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the Enterprise Agreement did not meet the criteria for approval as it failed to appropriately address the issue of minimum entitlements, particularly in relation to the payment of allowances. The Commission found that the agreement did not provide for the payment of allowances that were consistent with industry standards and practices, and that it did not adequately protect the interests of employees. The Commission also noted that the agreement did not include provisions that were necessary for the proper operation of the enterprise, including those relating to productivity and efficiency. Accordingly, the Commission refused to approve the Enterprise Agreement.

The Fair Work Commission refused the application for approval of the Enterprise Agreement. The Commission determined that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 230 of the Fair Work Act, and that it was not in the best interests of the employees to approve it. The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, and that the agreement remain unregistered.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established