DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/4813)

WESTKON PRECAST CONCRETE PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) PRECAST PANEL ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 8 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the Westkon Precast Concrete Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Precast Panel Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Westkon Precast Concrete Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Precast Panel 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 8 August 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 15 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

The case involves an application for approval of the Westkon Precast Concrete Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division) Precast Panel Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, and the decision was made by Commissioner Scott. The union and the employer had entered into an enterprise agreement, and the union sought approval from the Commission. The employer contested the application, raising issues regarding the terms of the agreement and its compliance with the relevant industrial legislation.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the employer argued that the agreement did not comply with section 235 of the Act, which mandates that an enterprise agreement must be in writing and contain certain prescribed terms. The employer contended that the agreement was not sufficiently detailed in some areas and failed to address certain issues that were essential to the operation of the enterprise. The union, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was sufficiently detailed and complied with all relevant legal requirements.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commissioner found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of section 235 of the Act. The Commissioner identified several deficiencies in the agreement, including a lack of clarity in some provisions and an absence of certain essential terms. The Commissioner also found that the agreement did not adequately address certain issues that were critical to the operation of the enterprise. As a result, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commissioner emphasised the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements meet all legal requirements and contain sufficient detail to facilitate the smooth operation of the enterprise.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The Commissioner found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, as it lacked clarity in some provisions and did not contain certain essential terms. The Commissioner also found that the agreement did not adequately address certain critical issues. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with all relevant legal requirements and contain sufficient detail to facilitate the smooth operation of the enterprise. The parties are free to negotiate a new agreement that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Commissioner.

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