DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/4632)

AUSTRALIAN PRESTRESSING SERVICES (VIC) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2016

Application for approval of the Australian Prestressing Services (Vic) 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 the Australian Prestressing Services (Vic) 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. 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 29 July 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 5 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 case of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant sought approval of the Australian Prestressing Services (Vic) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The dispute centred on the terms of the enterprise agreement and whether they complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues revolved around the provisions of the enterprise agreement, specifically whether they met the criteria for fair and portable terms and conditions under the Fair Work Act. This included assessing the agreement's impact on employee entitlements, working conditions, and procedural fairness. The court needed to determine if the agreement provided adequate protections and if it allowed for reasonable adjustments and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Fair Work Commission carefully reviewed the provisions of the enterprise agreement, taking into account the Fair Work Act and relevant case law. It found that, while most provisions were compliant, certain aspects did not meet the required standards. The Commission identified specific clauses that needed to be amended to ensure they provided fair and portable terms and conditions for employees. Consequently, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement subject to the specified amendments.

Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission's decision required the parties to modify the enterprise agreement to align with the statutory requirements. The approved agreement, with the necessary changes, was then to be implemented, ensuring that it provided appropriate protections and procedural fairness for the employees covered by the agreement.

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