DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/892)

BRITTON BROS PTY LTD AND CFMEU ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2016

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2016

Application for approval of the Britton Bros Pty Ltd and CFMEU Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Britton Bros Pty Ltd and CFMEU Enterprise Bargaining 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 26 April 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 3 May 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 before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Britton Bros Pty Ltd and Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016. The dispute centred around whether the agreement met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it appropriately balanced the interests of both employers and employees. The Commission was tasked with examining the specifics of the agreement, including its provisions on wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions, to determine if it complied with the relevant legislative framework.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the bargaining agreement contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions, whether it was made in good faith, and if it was consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement was likely to achieve a fair and efficient outcome for both parties, taking into account the broader economic context and the principles of industrial relations. The Union argued that the agreement fairly represented the workforce's needs, while Britton Bros Pty Ltd contended that certain provisions were overly restrictive and could negatively impact their business operations.

The Commission found that the agreement largely met the statutory requirements and was made in good faith. It considered the balance of the parties' submissions and the evidence presented. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions and that it was consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act. It also found that the agreement was likely to achieve a fair and efficient outcome for both parties, taking into account the broader economic context and the principles of industrial relations. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Britton Bros Pty Ltd and Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016, finding it to be compliant with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 and balanced in its approach to the interests of both employers and employees. The approval took effect from the date of the decision, and both parties were directed to adhere to the terms of the agreement as set out in the approval.

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