Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2018] FWCA 940

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2017/6662)

Australian Post Tensioning Systems (ACT) Pty Ltd and CFMEU ACT Post-Tensioning Sector Agreement 2016

Australian Capital Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2018

Application for variation of the Australian Post tensioning Systems (ACT) Pty Ltd and CFMEU ACT Post-Tensioning Sector Agreement 2016.

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Australian Post tensioning Systems (ACT) Pty Ltd and CFMEU ACT Post-Tensioning Sector Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

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

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 12 February 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought a variation of the Australian Post Tensioning Systems (ACT) Pty Ltd and CFMEU ACT Post-Tensioning Sector Agreement 2016. The union argued that the agreement should be amended to address new working conditions and changes in the industry, seeking adjustments to work hours, rest periods, and the classification of certain work tasks. The employer, Australian Post Tensioning Systems, opposed the application, contending that the requested changes were not warranted and would unnecessarily increase costs without corresponding benefits to the business.

The legal issues before the commission included whether the proposed variations were necessary to address changes in the industry or working conditions, and if so, whether these variations should be incorporated into the existing agreement. The commission had to consider the principles of fairness and reasonableness in employment agreements, balancing the interests of both the employer and the employees. It also had to assess the evidence presented regarding the industry changes and their impact on working practices.

The commission found that several of the changes proposed by the union were indeed necessary to reflect the evolving nature of the industry and to ensure fair working conditions. The commission determined that the evidence supported the need for amendments to work hours and rest periods, and agreed that certain tasks should be reclassified. The commission varied the agreement accordingly, making specific changes to the hours of work, rest periods, and work classifications as requested by the union. The final orders included detailed provisions reflecting the agreed variations, ensuring that the agreement would remain relevant and fair for both parties moving forward.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established