DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/4257)

UAS ACCESS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 22 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the UAS Access Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UAS Access Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015-2016 (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 29 August 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of a collective agreement with UAS Access Pty Ltd, a small business involved in aerial surveillance services. The applicant union sought to have the agreement approved as a safety net agreement, which would provide minimum terms and conditions of employment to workers in the aerial surveillance industry. The employer opposed the application, arguing that the agreement was not suitable for approval because it contained provisions that were overly prescriptive and not in the best interests of the workers.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement provided for minimum terms and conditions of employment and whether it was in the best interests of the workers. The Commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that were more prescriptive than the safety net agreement's minimum standards and that the agreement was not in the best interests of the workers because it did not provide for adequate consultation and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Commission also noted that the employer had not provided any evidence to support its claim that the agreement was in the best interests of the workers.

The Commission found that the agreement did not provide for minimum terms and conditions of employment and was not in the best interests of the workers. The Commission rejected the application for approval of the agreement, noting that it contained provisions that were overly prescriptive and did not provide for adequate consultation and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Commission also noted that the employer had not provided any evidence to support its claim that the agreement was in the best interests of the workers. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not suitable for approval as a safety net agreement.

The Fair Work Commission rejected the application for approval of the collective agreement, finding that it did not provide for minimum terms and conditions of employment and was not in the best interests of the workers. The Commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that were overly prescriptive and did not provide for adequate consultation and dispute resolution mechanisms. The employer was ordered to pay the applicant union's costs of and incidental to the application.

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