DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/4998)

QUINTON LEE SOPER T/AS ALL IN 1 BUILDING AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	SYDNEY, 15 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the Quinton Lee Soper T/As All in 1 Building 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 Quinton Lee Soper T/As All in 1 Building 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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[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 was approved on 15 August 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 22 August 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

In the matter of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Quinton Lee Soper, the Fair Work Commission was asked to approve an enterprise agreement between the union and the employer. The agreement in question is the Quinton Lee Soper T/As All in 1 Building and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The dispute between the parties centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the issues involved whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements for the negotiation and signing of the agreement, and whether it contained mandatory terms that were not expressly prohibited by the Act.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties regarding the negotiation process, the execution of the agreement, and the terms contained within it. It considered whether the agreement was negotiated in good faith, whether there was adequate consultation and disclosure of information, and whether the union had the appropriate authorisation to sign on behalf of its members. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the terms of the agreement were consistent with the principles of the Act and whether any mandatory terms were permissible under the law.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the agreement was negotiated and executed in accordance with the legal requirements. The court was satisfied that there was sufficient consultation and disclosure, and that the union had the necessary authority to sign the agreement on behalf of its members. The court also determined that the terms of the agreement were consistent with the principles of the Act and that any mandatory terms were not expressly prohibited. Consequently, the court approved the enterprise agreement, finding it to be fair and reasonable.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission approved the Quinton Lee Soper T/As All in 1 Building and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The agreement is now legally binding on the parties and will govern the employment conditions of the employees covered by the agreement for the specified period.

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