DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/3656)

GARDEN FX LANDSCAPING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 1 JULY 2016

Application for approval of the Garden FX Landscaping 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 Garden FX Landscaping 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 1 July 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 8 July 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 matter involved an application for approval of the Enterprise Agreement between Garden FX Landscaping Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division). The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), with Deputy President J P Richardson presiding. The union sought approval of the agreement, which outlined terms and conditions for employees within the landscaping industry. The company contested some aspects of the agreement, primarily focusing on provisions related to classification, shift patterns, and certain allowances.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the agreement met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that certain provisions were not fair and did not comply with the Act. The union contended that the agreement was fair and that the contested provisions were reasonable and necessary to protect the employees' interests. The FWC had to determine whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether it adhered to the principles of procedural and substantive fairness.

The FWC assessed the agreement against the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act. It considered the nature of the agreement, the process by which it was negotiated, and the content of the provisions. The FWC found that the agreement was generally fair and in the best interests of the employees. It accepted that the union had adequately represented the employees and that the company had engaged in good faith negotiations. The FWC also found that the contested provisions, while not ideal, were reasonable and necessary to ensure fair treatment and adequate protection for the employees. Consequently, the FWC approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the company's concerns.

The FWC issued its decision approving the enterprise agreement with modifications. These modifications included clarifications and adjustments to certain provisions to address the company's concerns. The union and the company were directed to implement the agreement as modified by the FWC. The decision was made in the interest of ensuring fair and reasonable terms for the employees and maintaining harmonious industrial relations within the industry.

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