DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/2847)

CITYLINK TULLA WIDENING BULLA ROAD TO POWER STREET ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 10 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the CityLink Tulla Widening Bulla Road to Power Street Enterprise Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CityLink Tulla Widening Bulla Road to Power Street Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the 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 10 May 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 17 May 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 17 May 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Building and Construction Trades Union, sought approval of an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement, proposed by the employer, was intended to govern the terms and conditions of employment for employees involved in the CityLink Tulla Widening Bulla Road to Power Street project. The Commission was required to determine whether the proposed agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement provided for fair and efficient bargaining, provided for reasonable minimum terms and conditions, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed agreement was genuinely negotiated, provided for fair and efficient bargaining, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also considered whether the agreement provided for reasonable minimum terms and conditions and whether it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicants argued that the agreement did not genuinely reflect the outcome of free collective bargaining as required by the Act. They contended that the agreement did not provide for fair and efficient bargaining and was not in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission found that the proposed agreement did not genuinely reflect the outcome of free collective bargaining as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees and did not provide for fair and efficient bargaining. The Commission found that the agreement imposed terms and conditions on the employees that were not genuinely negotiated and did not provide for reasonable minimum terms and conditions. The Commission rejected the application for approval of the proposed enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission rejected the application for approval of the CityLink Tulla Widening Bulla Road to Power Street Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Commission found that the agreement did not genuinely reflect the outcome of free collective bargaining, did not provide for fair and efficient bargaining, and was not in the best interests of the employees. The Commission also found that the agreement did not provide for reasonable minimum terms and conditions and did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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