DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/5911)

R & M ENGINEERING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) RIGGER/STEEL ERECTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 23 JANUARY 2018

Application for variation of the R & M Engineering Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the R & M Engineering Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 (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).

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

[3] 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.

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

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 23 January 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, representing Riggers and Steel Erectors, sought a variation to the Rigger/Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 between R & M Engineering Pty Ltd and the union. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed variations to the agreement were procedurally and substantively valid, particularly in relation to changes in classification of roles and associated pay rates.

The court examined whether the union had appropriately consulted with its members and if the proposed changes were in line with the agreement’s objectives and principles. It also assessed whether the changes were necessary to maintain the competitive and financial viability of the employer. The union argued that the changes were necessary to align with industry standards and to ensure fair pay for its members. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the proposed variations were excessive and could undermine its financial sustainability.

In its decision, the court found that the union had adequately consulted with its members and that the variations proposed were procedurally sound. However, the court also determined that some of the changes were not justified and did not align with the principles of the original agreement. As a result, the court varied certain aspects of the proposed changes to strike a balance between the interests of the employer and the employees. The court also noted the importance of maintaining a competitive edge for the employer while ensuring fair remuneration for the workers.

The final orders of the court included specific amendments to the pay rates and classifications as proposed by the union, subject to certain conditions to ensure the employer's financial viability was not unduly compromised.

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