DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/4758)

KLB LINEMARKING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 3 AUGUST 2016

Application for approval of the KLB Linemarking 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 KLB Linemarking 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 10 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 this matter before the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and KLB Linemarking Pty Ltd sought approval for an enterprise agreement. The agreement, dated 2016-2018, aimed to establish the terms and conditions of employment for workers within the specified industry. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable rate of pay, whether it was consistent with the national minimum safety net, and whether the agreement had been genuinely negotiated between the parties. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the agreement complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act, including the provision of relevant documents and notices to the affected employees.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not meet the criteria for approval as it failed to adequately address the minimum wage entitlements and the national minimum safety net. The Commission noted that the agreement did not provide for adequate pay rates for certain classifications of employees and failed to adequately address specific conditions of employment. Furthermore, the Commission found procedural shortcomings in the negotiation process, leading to the conclusion that the agreement was not genuinely negotiated. Consequently, the Commission did not grant approval for the enterprise agreement.

No final orders were made as the application was dismissed. The Commission provided feedback to the parties on how the agreement could be improved to meet the necessary legal requirements for future consideration.

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