DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/5941)

PURE CONTRACTING PTY LTD/ CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2017-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	PERTH, 18 JANUARY 2018

Application for variation of the Pure Contracting Pty Ltd/ CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Pure Contracting Pty Ltd/ CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018 (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 18 January 2018.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Pure Contracting Pty Ltd for a variation of the Collective Agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for the period 2017-2018. The applicant sought changes to the terms and conditions of employment, including alterations to rosters, shift patterns, and penalty rates. The CFMEU opposed these changes, arguing that they were not warranted and would adversely affect the working conditions of their members.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes to the Collective Agreement were reasonable and justified under the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for these changes. The Commission needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties and consider the broader implications of the changes for the workforce, including any potential impact on industrial relations and workplace harmony.

The Commission found that while the applicant had demonstrated a need for some changes to accommodate operational requirements, not all of the proposed changes were necessary or justified. The changes that were deemed reasonable were those that allowed for greater flexibility in rostering and shift patterns, while maintaining adequate protections for employees. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced approach to workplace agreements, ensuring that any changes are reasonable and do not undermine the rights and conditions of employees. The final orders reflected these findings, approving some of the proposed changes while rejecting others, and setting out specific terms and conditions for the approved changes.

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