DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/574)

BRISBANE CONCRETE REPAIRS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015 - 2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 21 MARCH 2016

Application for approval of the Brisbane Concrete Repairs Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015 - 2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Brisbane Concrete Repairs Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015 - 2019 (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 21 March 2016 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 28 March 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 July 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Brisbane Concrete Repairs Pty Ltd, with the latter seeking approval of a collective agreement for the period 2015 to 2019. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with resolving workplace disputes and promoting cooperative relationships between employers and employees. The primary dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the Commission's decision-making process regarding the approval of the collective agreement. The CFMEU argued that the Commission did not adequately consider certain submissions made during the approval process.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Commission properly exercised its discretion in approving the collective agreement and whether the CFMEU's procedural fairness was adequately protected during the process. The Commission's role in reviewing and approving such agreements and the extent of its obligations to consider all relevant submissions were central to the dispute. The Commission's procedural fairness in handling the CFMEU's concerns about the approval process was also scrutinised.

In its decision, the Commission explained that it had given careful consideration to the submissions made by both parties and was satisfied that it had exercised its discretion appropriately. The Commission highlighted that it had considered the content and implications of the collective agreement, as well as the broader context of industrial relations in the sector. The court found that the Commission had not erred in its procedural approach, as it had provided the CFMEU with adequate opportunities to present its views and had made reasoned decisions based on the evidence and submissions received. The Commission's process was deemed to be fair and in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission upheld its decision to approve the collective agreement between the CFMEU and Brisbane Concrete Repairs Pty Ltd for the period 2015 to 2019, finding that the procedural fairness obligations were met. The Commission's detailed reasoning demonstrated its careful consideration of the submissions and its adherence to the legislative framework governing such approvals. The CFMEU's procedural fairness claims were dismissed, affirming the Commission's decision-making process.

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