| [2016] FWCA 6286 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/5392)
CLADDING SYSTEMS (AUST) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER GREGORY | MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2016 |
Application for approval of the Cladding Systems (Aust) 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 Cladding Systems (Aust) 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 12 September 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code O, AE420914 PR584981>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FWCA 6286
- Case
- [2016] FWCA 6286
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the terms of the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and whether the agreement met the "better off overall test" for approval. This test requires that employees be no worse off financially under the new agreement than they would be under the applicable award or previous agreement. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement contained any provisions that were contrary to the public interest or that would undermine the operation of the national workplace relations system.
After examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement did not meet the better off overall test. Specifically, the Commission determined that some of the pay rates and conditions outlined in the agreement were not fair and reasonable. The Commission also found that certain provisions of the agreement were contrary to the public interest, as they had the potential to undermine the operation of the national workplace relations system. As a result, the Commission did not approve the agreement. The Commission did, however, commend the parties for their efforts to negotiate a fair and reasonable agreement, and encouraged them to continue to work together to reach a resolution that would be in the best interests of both employees and employers.
The Commission did not make any final orders, as the agreement was not approved. However, the Commission's decision provides guidance to the parties on the issues that need to be addressed in any future negotiations. The Commission also emphasised the importance of reaching a fair and reasonable agreement that meets the requirements of the Fair Work Act and does not undermine the national workplace relations system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.